The Secretary of State was asked—

Wayne David: With all due respect, what the hon. Lady has to remember is the tremendous amount of work that has been done by this Government to raise pensioners out of poverty and to help the poorest pensioners. Incidentally, I read the article in  The Western Mail that includes quotations from her, and I must tell her that the poorest pensioners are not on £95 a week. Not one pensioner is on less than £130 a week. In addition, they get free prescriptions for drugs and free eye tests, there are free TV licences for the over-75s and there is free bus travel and dentistry for the over-60s. A lot of work is being done, and that good work will continue.

Peter Hain: What we would not do is what the Conservative party would do, which is cut public investment. We have invested and we are continuing to invest £20 billion, some of which is coming into Wales, in construction and other infrastructure projects in order to fill the gap left by the private sector's inability to invest, given the worldwide financial crisis. Those are the polices that the Government are following and we will continue to follow them, despite the criticism by the Opposition.

Peter Hain: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has had to be briefed by somebody for this question, but it was pretty poor briefing. The truth is that the three excellent quality candidates—they are some of the highest calibre politicians in Wales—standing for the leadership of Welsh Labour are all committed to programmes such as ReAct, which seeks to support people who lose their jobs, and ProAct, which seeks to support people so that they do not lose their jobs, all of which are publicly funded by the Welsh Assembly Government. Those policies would come under severe threat if the Conservatives won the next election, because they are committed to massive public spending cuts in Wales.

John Smith: Now that planning permission has been granted for the defence technical college at St. Athan—at seven times the size of the millennium stadium, it is the largest development of its type ever in Wales—what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact of this, the largest vocational training centre in the United Kingdom, on the Welsh economy?

Peter Hain: It will have an enormous impact on the Welsh economy, and I commend my hon. Friend for his hard work in seeking to take that forward. On Remembrance day, we might ask the Opposition parties whether they will give an absolute commitment to support the project—[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] I am answering. This will create the best and most highly skilled armed force training anywhere in the world. It is a world-class facility that will put our soldiers in a better position than any other military force across the world, and it needs all-party support. Perhaps the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) will give that support.

Peter Hain: I joint the hon. Lady in paying tribute to our soldiers, especially on Remembrance day. As for the nuclear power project on Anglesey, Wylfa B, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has lobbied me hard on this. We are working together to ensure that we can take it forward. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has prioritised it, and I know that the Welsh Assembly Government candidates standing for the Labour leadership, and therefore for the First Minister's position, have all supported the Wylfa B project. I shall continue to work with them, whoever is elected, to take that forward.

Cheryl Gillan: But there is a real problem with the Secretary of State's party's position. He is supporting Wylfa but the First Minister is against it. I admit that Mr. Jones—the frontrunner to succeed the First Minister—is in favour, but the Labour Assembly Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing, Jane Davidson, is against it and wants a public inquiry. Are not these dangerously mixed messages to be sending out over such an important project for the Welsh economy?

Peter Hain: No, not at all, because the decision is taken by the UK Government. It has not just my backing but that of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Prime Minister, and it also has the redoubtable backing of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. We intend to take the project forward in the future, and I am sure that when we do, it will have the backing of the Welsh Assembly Government. I would like the hon. Lady, instead of giving us mixed messages on the defence training college and other crucial projects in Wales that need Government support, to join me in backing them.

Ann Clwyd: As my hon. Friend knows, 17 per cent. of people in my constituency are on incapacity benefit—one of the highest percentages of disabled people in the UK. Many people are concerned that the proposed changes will threaten their allowances. Will he assure them that they will not be worse off under the proposals?

Wayne David: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that we can scrap the consultation, which is vital if we are to tackle one of the biggest social issues of our time. We cannot pretend that these issues will go away: they cannot go away, and Labour Members are determined to get the policy right. That is why we are having the consultation. It is fundamentally central to our approach, because we believe in helping people to live in dignity in their own homes—unlike the Opposition, who would rather shift people into residential care homes.

Peter Hain: I agree; it was fantastic that the whole leadership of the people of Newport combined to say that we do not want such a nasty, racist and poisonous influence in our community. It is worth reminding the House that some of the individuals who lead the Welsh Defence League and its equivalent—the English Defence League—have serious criminal convictions for violence and other nefarious activities. They are not the sort of political groups that we want anywhere in our communities in Wales.

Wayne David: The Secretary of State and I regularly hold such meetings. For example, I recently met the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) to discuss the importance of a new prison in north Wales that would have a positive impact on offender manager in that area, by enabling prisoners to remain close to their families—a proven factor in reducing reoffending.

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the success made in Wales in tackling offending by women—in particular, the success of the Women's Turnaround Project, based in Cardiff, which aims to stop women reoffending and going to prison? Will he congratulate that project?

Elfyn Llwyd: May I first associate myself fully with the words of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)? On offender management, does the Minister realise that the £24 million cut in the probation service budget for England and Wales means that over 90 per cent. of newly qualified probation officers in Wales will not be offered a job? In his next routine meeting with the Ministry of Justice, will he show his concern about that terrible statistic?

Wayne David: It is important that we have a modernisation agenda and ensure that the probation service is as effective as possible—I believe that that is happening—and I welcome the fact that, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is to serve on an inquiry panel that has been recently set up by the Howard League for Penal Reform. I am sure that he would agree that we must ensure that a disproportionately large number of ex-service personnel do not enter our prisons.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend is correct. There will be an enormous economic benefit to the area that is fortunate enough to have a new prison. I am pleased that my hon. Friend had a successful meeting yesterday with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday. There is a common agenda that we can work on and take forward.

Wayne David: I find the logic somewhat perverse. The early part of the hon. Gentleman's comments came across to me as an argument against a prison in north Wales. But it is very important that we all pull together; we have the same argument. We recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, that there is an economic case to be made for a prison in north Wales. There is also a need to ensure that prisoners from north Wales who speak Welsh are actively catered for.

Peter Hain: The £1 billion future jobs fund is already creating 4,200 jobs where they are most needed in Wales. Nearly 1,500 jobs will be created in Carmarthenshire and Swansea alone, helping many of my hon. Friend's young constituents to find jobs.

Chris Ruane: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to raise my decibel level for you. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in times of economic downturn, what the public are looking for is the helping hand of Government intervention, such as the future jobs, city strategy and "Fit for Work" initiatives. What they do not want is laissez-faire, let the recession—

Wayne David: Safeguarding jobs and improving access to training is, of course, a priority. In Wales, economic summits have led to an additional £20 million to support apprenticeships and the Welsh Assembly Government budget provides for a further £20.5 million to deliver education and training for the young people hit hardest by the recession.

The Prime Minister was asked—

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Serjeant Phillip Scott, Rifleman Philip Allen, Rifleman Samuel Bassett, Warrant Officer Class 1 Darren Chant, Sergeant Matthew Telford, Guardsman James Major, Corporal Steven Boote and Corporal Nicholas Webster-Smith. As the Prime Minister said, on this Armistice day we should remember all those servicemen and women who have given their lives in the service of our country. Their sacrifice must never be forgotten.
	I join the Prime Minister in praising the work of the Royal British Legion. All of us know from our constituency surgeries that it is one of the most effective organisations for looking after the families and those who have served, and everyone in this House, I know, will want to pay it a tribute today.
	Today, the youth unemployment rate has reached a record high in our country. Almost 1 million young people—that is one in five—cannot find work. The Prime Minister once promised "to abolish youth unemployment". Does he accept that he has failed?

David Cameron: The Prime Minister is living in a parallel universe. The figures announced today are that there are 943,000 young people who cannot find work in our country. He talks about other European countries; the whole of Germany has 537,000 young people unemployed, and France has 765,000. We, I repeat, have 943,000. He said:
	"Our plan is nothing less than to abolish youth unemployment."
	Anyone must accept that he has failed. He also promised full employment. In fact, unemployment is up by almost 500,000 since he came to power. He promised that no young person should spend years without a job. In fact, the number of young people unemployed for more than a year has gone up by 50 per cent. Does he accept that on any of these yardsticks—youth unemployment, total unemployment, the amount of time young people are unemployed—he has failed?

Gordon Brown: No; there are 700,000 more young people in work than in 1997. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman can say can change the fact that there are more people in full-time education and in work under this Government than there were when we took over. As for youth unemployment, he knows perfectly well that the rate of youth unemployment in Spain is 40 per cent and that the rate in Ireland is nearly 30 per cent. What we have tried to do, facing a situation in which young people face the prospect of unemployment, is to give them jobs, but every measure has been opposed by the Opposition. They opposed our summer school leavers' guarantee. They opposed the new deal efforts for 18 to 24-year-olds and want to abolish the new deal in its entirety. They oppose educational maintenance allowances. Nothing that they would do would make unemployment lower; it would make unemployment higher.

David Cameron: As ever, the Prime Minister is completely wrong. Our plan to get Britain working will help more people and help them more quickly, and it is fully funded, because we have taken tough decisions about the deficit. The Prime Minister ought to know about it—after all, it was drawn up by David Freud, who was his welfare guru, one of the many people who have left the bunker and come to work for us.  [Interruption.]

Gordon Brown: Let me say that we have put £1 billion into the future jobs fund to provide 100,000 jobs for young people, with another 50,000 in areas of high unemployment. I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he support our measure or not?

David Cameron: We have set out schemes far greater than anything that the Prime Minister has come up with. If we want to spend a little time on the Prime Minister's schemes, what about the mortgage rescue scheme, which was meant to help thousands? How many has it helped? Just 16 families. What about the capital for enterprise fund? It was meant to transform British businesses. How many has it helped? Just five. What about the asset-backed securities guarantee? How many assets has it backed? None—zero. The Prime Minister says that he is investing money, but I have here a leaked memo from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.  [Interruption.] They do not want to listen. It is 11 pages, and the Prime Minister has got a copy, too—it was sent to Peter Mandelson, so it must be important. It calls for a cut in apprenticeship rates of 10 per cent., a cut in the adult learning budget of 10 per cent. and a cut in development loans of 50 per cent. Does that leaked memo not tell us that, far from the Prime Minister's mantra about investment, he is planning cuts, because of the mess he has made of our finances?

David Cameron: The fact is that the Prime Minister's policies are not working. The people who have lost out are the 943,000 young people who have lost their jobs under his Government. He has given us the deepest and longest recession since the war and the fastest rising unemployment. Why cannot he admit— [Interruption.]

David Cameron: They know they have got a party leader who has lost it. Why cannot the Prime Minister admit what everybody knows to be true—that the Government are having to make cuts? Let me read to him what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says about him:
	"I am trying to talk sense into that man. He just doesn't get it—going on about 'Tory cuts' is not going to make an impact on the electorate... The voters aren't stupid—they know how bad the economic situation is".
	Will the Prime Minister finally acknowledge that he is planning cuts in departmental spending next year, 2010?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman gave a cast-iron commitment on Europe, and what happened to that? He gave a cast-iron commitment last week to the national health service, and what is going to happen to that? He is giving a cast-iron commitment on what he will do for young people, but he cannot match what we are doing for young people now. He opposes Sure Start, he opposes educational maintenance allowance, he opposes child tax credits, he opposes the new deal and he opposes everything that will get young people back to work. The Conservatives were responsible for the highest level of unemployment this country has seen, and they would put us back to that if ever they were given the chance. That is why people want a Labour Government that is working.

Gordon Brown: I echo exactly what my hon. Friend has said about the way that different communities in this country have come out in support of, and to honour, those people who are heroes to them and to us, who have given their lives serving in Afghanistan. What happened yesterday at Wootton Bassett and what is happening in the towns and villages where the servicemen who died come from is, again, an outstanding tribute of the British people to our armed forces.
	I think it is important that we never forget the sacrifices that have been made. That is why it is important that the war memorials are kept up to the standard that is necessary. That is why we have made funding available for the upkeep of memorials—£1.5 million since 2005—and other additional money from the Heritage Lottery Fund, but of course I will meet my hon. Friend and any Members who are concerned about the state of war memorials in their communities. It is absolutely crucial to the future of our nation that we never forget the service of those who died to make us free.

Nicholas Clegg: I am sure that most people will recognise the genuine sincerity, as always, of the sympathy and condolence that the Prime Minister expressed on all our behalves to the family and friends of those who tragically lost their lives, not only in Afghanistan, but in previous conflicts. I, of course, add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the families and friends of Warrant Officer Class 1 Darren Chant, Sergeant Matthew Telford, Guardsman James Major, Acting Corporal Steven Boote and Corporal Nicholas Webster-Smith, who were killed in that terrible incident last week, and to the families and friends of Serjeant Phillip Scott, Rifleman Philip Allen and Rifleman Samuel John Bassett, who tragically lost their lives in Afghanistan this week.
	How is it possible, in the middle of a recession, with unemployment at 2.5 million and rising, that this Government—a Labour Government—should be planning to change local housing allowance rules to take £15 a week from some of the poorest people in Britain?

Nicholas Clegg: That response beggars belief—they are the Prime Minister's figures. How would he feel if he was on £80 a week and the Government came along and said, "We're going to take £15 of that away"? This is going to hit up to 300,000 of the poorest people in this country and it will not save the Treasury any money. It took him months to do the right thing—the U-turn—on the 10p tax rate fiasco. Will he now look at this measure, stop it, and stop it now? Will he do that—yes or no?

Gordon Brown: This is the man who talked about savage cuts in public services. What we are trying to do is to reform housing benefit in a way that helps those who are most in need. What we are also trying to do is to use our resources to help those who are unemployed get back into work. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about proposals on housing benefit, he is talking about proposals for consultation—no decision has been made.

Tim Loughton: A year ago today, we heard the verdict in the baby Peter case and started to understand the horrors behind that tragically short life. Ministers rightly said that it should never happen again. Today the Local Government Association has produced a report showing that 60 per cent. of local authorities are struggling to retain and recruit key child protection social workers. We know how demoralised the profession is—social workers are shackled to computers and spend 80 per cent. of their time on bureaucratic procedures. Why should vulnerable children in this country today feel any safer than they did two years ago with the death of baby Peter, or nine and a half years ago with the death of Victoria Climbié in equally tragic circumstances?

Ken Purchase: As the number of people progressing into very old age increases, the Prime Minister will agree that it is necessary to take measures to protect them properly, unlike—unfortunately—many Tory and Lib Dem councils, which are closing care homes and evicting very elderly people, such as 106-year-old Mrs. Louisa Watts in my constituency. She loves her—

Gordon Brown: We have said—I repeated this yesterday to a meeting and again this morning—that nobody who is receiving tax relief for child care vouchers will lose it. That assurance, which I make here and which was made yesterday as well, is one that people will welcome. At the same time, we want to expand nursery care for two-year-olds and create a situation in which nursery education runs into primary and secondary education from two to 18. However, no Government have done more to advance and support child care in our country, and we shall continue to do so in the next few months.

Jim Dobbin: My constituent Jean Edwards died recently after falling ill in Turkey. Her family have received a bill for £100,000 for the private care that she received. The travel insurance did not materialise. Will the Prime Minister look at a report out soon by the Law Commission recommending reforms to the insurance industry across the insurance spectrum? They are providing a draft Bill, and it would be interesting if that were looked at in future legislation.

Elliot Morley: The news today of the biggest rise in the number of people in employment for 18 months is good. However, in my constituency there have been many job loses, particularly in the steel industry. One company told me that the greatest help that it has received has come from the effects of the fiscal stimulus, public sector investment in building and infrastructure, and training. As we begin to see an improvement in the economy, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to support manufacturing?

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent discovery in Staffordshire of the largest collection of Anglo-Saxon gold ever found. Will he give his backing to a plan to create in the region a Saxon tourist trail and support the  Tamworth Herald campaign to bring this gold to be displayed in the ancient Saxon capital of the kingdom of Mercia—the town of Tamworth?

Gordon Brown: I say and say again that we are so proud of the work that our troops do in Afghanistan—they are committed; they are brave; they are utterly professional. What we have to do is show people, first, why we are in Afghanistan—that there is a chain of terror that comes from the Pakistan-Afghan mountains that could threaten the streets of London. Then we have to show people that, with the great commitment, energy and expertise of our armed forces, we have a plan to ensure that the Afghans can take more control of their own affairs, so that over time our troops can come home. I applaud the extreme bravery of every member of our armed forces in Afghanistan, particularly in the most difficult circumstances, where three quarters of deaths are due to explosive devices.

Phil Willis: The Prime Minister will know that there are about 1.3 million carers, who do the most fantastic job looking after people, often 24/7. This year £50 million was allocated by the Prime Minister to support respite care, but only 10 per cent. of that has been spent. In my primary care trust area, £365,000 is available, but only £3,600 has been spent. What will he do to ensure that carers get the respite that they need and not simply another headline?

Patrick McFadden: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to— [ Interruption. ]

Patrick McFadden: I wish to repeat a statement made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on our policies for skills and their role in our future economic growth.
	An active Government approach to equipping the country for globalisation means ensuring that we have the skills that underwrite the industries and jobs of the future. That means skills for the high-tech, low-carbon, more high-value-added sectors that drive the growth that underwrites everything else that we want to achieve as a society. These skills are becoming more sophisticated and even more vital.
	I also start from the position that skills in our society must always be an individual's ladder up. That is why the skills system needs to mesh with our university system. We need schools and colleges to make a strong vocational offer, which will lead to a clear vocational route from apprenticeship to technician to foundation degree and beyond.
	Equipping unemployed people with the skills that they need to get jobs in key sectors will be essential to a strong recovery. Let us remember that by equipping more of the domestic population with the right skills to compete for jobs, we help employers to become less reliant on migrant labour. Addressing these skills challenges has been the focus of our skills strategy in recent years, and it remains the foundation on which our new policies build.
	We recognise that skills have historically been an area of British competitive weakness. Since 1997, we have made real progress in tackling the economic and social scandal of adult illiteracy and innumeracy. We will not abandon our promise of basic skills for all. We have eradicated much of the poor quality that blighted our further education system. We have transformed work place training through Train to Gain, which has trained more than 1 million employees and helped them to get on in work. We have revived apprenticeships, which were allowed to wither away in the '80s and '90s. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which is before the House today, will ensure that this progress is sustained.
	This skills strategy builds on the progress made. It reflects some important decisions and marks a radical shift in the balance of our skills priorities. It reflects the world we find ourselves in: a world where higher level skills have never been more important to our growth, and where the skills challenge has to be tackled within more constrained resources. So we have made some difficult choices. The crisis help that we targeted to help to counter the effects of the recession will progressively be refocused on the skills that we need for a sustained recovery.
	We have taken three key decisions. First, we will change the focus of our skills system so that a new premium is put on higher skills, especially the technician skills that are the foundation of high-tech, low-carbon industry. Secondly, we will empower learners through more choice and better information to drive up the quality of the system through skills accounts. Thirdly, we will dramatically reduce the number of publicly supported bodies delivering skills policy, working with the UK Commission for Employment and Skills to reduce them by more than 30. These choices will target public investment on the most relevant skills for the future, at the highest possible levels of quality and marketability.
	The first of these decisions reflects the need for a new focus on the skills that we need in the laboratory, the high-tech factory and the computer facility. We will create a new, modern class of technicians—something that has long been identified as a gap in our labour market. To build this technician class, we will further expand the apprenticeship system by creating 35,000 new advanced places for those aged 19 to 30 over the next two years.
	The aim of creating this technician class will also be aided by the new generation of university technical colleges whose creation we are supporting. To turn these apprenticeships into potential ladders to university, from 2011 all apprenticeship frameworks at levels 3 and 4 will be required to have UCAS tariff points, just as A-levels do, so that holders can apply for, and make their way into, university. We will also commit to the recommendation from the panel on fair access to the professions that we create an apprenticeship scholarship fund that will provide one-off bursaries of up to £1,000 for 1,000 apprentices entering higher education every year.
	We will take a more strategic approach to the skills that we fund. That means prioritising strategic skills in key industries such as advanced manufacturing, low-carbon, digital technologies and biosciences, and in important growth sectors such as health care. Our decisions in the next bidding round of the national skills academies programme will reflect these core national priorities.
	The second of our decisions is to increase the power of learners to drive up quality in the skills training sector by giving them more choice over where and when they train, and better information on how to exercise that choice. To give effect to that greater choice, we will set up new skills accounts, which will enable students to shop around for training, backed by good information on how well different courses and colleges can meet their needs.
	Critically, we are going to more than treble the number of public and private institutions where accounts can be used to over 1,500—not only creating new options for learners, but creating a big incentive for providers to design courses that attract students.
	The further education sector has made significant strides in improving the quality of its provision over the last decade. Many of our colleges are performing at world-class levels, and overall success rates have increased by over 40 per cent. in the last 10 years. We will build on this by providing progressively greater autonomy to colleges that demonstrate teaching excellence, but also by cutting funding to low-priority and poorly provided courses. We will invest in the courses that employers judge are in line with their needs and requirements.
	Finally, we have decided to simplify the organisational clutter of public bodies delivering skills policy. We welcome the recommendation of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills to reduce the number of separate publicly funded agencies by over 30 and will work with them and others to make that happen. Our new model will make the regional development agencies responsible for leading the regional skills strategy in each area, working in partnership with local authorities and others.
	This skills strategy shares its fundamental challenge with our recent higher education framework. They must equip our people to prosper in a globalised knowledge economy. They must contribute to our return to sustained and sustainable growth. The goal of this strategy is a skills system defined not simply by targets based on achieved qualifications, but by "real world" outcomes—relevant quality skills with real market value. It will be driven by the realities of a changing global economy—by demand from the British businesses and individuals who have to prosper in that economy. The clearer the demand, the better the system will work.
	Our expectations of business will rise. We will strengthen the role of employer-led sector skills councils and business-led regional development agencies in shaping an excellent supply of courses and training, designed in direct response to local and national employer needs, but we will also expect businesses to make a greater contribution to the funding of skills training for their work force. We need a culture in which all employers take the view that the skills of their staff are one of the best investments they can make.
	Our ambition is that, thanks in large part to the innovations in this strategy, three quarters of people should participate in higher education or complete an advanced apprenticeship or equivalent technician-level course by the age of 30. This strategy empowers the further education system above all to compete to meet the needs of businesses and learners. That will put further education where it belongs—right at the heart of the knowledge economy, at the heart of our recovery and our future prosperity.

David Willetts: There is much in this statement that the Opposition welcome. We welcome what the Minister has said about ensuring that practical apprenticeships get UCAS points—something that we specifically proposed in our Green Paper last year. We welcome the proposal on scholarships for apprentices to go on to university—something that I proposed in my party conference speech in 2008. We welcome what the Minister has said about shifting back towards advanced apprenticeships at A-level equivalent. We also welcome the praise that the Minister rightly gave to the performance of our further education colleges and hope that he means what he says about simplifying the very complicated burdens that they face at the moment.
	I have several questions about the statement. First, can the Minister explain why we should believe what he says about simplifying the system? The Order Paper shows that after this statement the House is to consider the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which will give some of the responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council to local education authorities. Because the Government do not really trust LEAs, there is to be a new Young Person's Learning Agency whose job is to supervise those authorities. Then there is a separate National Apprenticeship Service and also a Skills Funding Agency or SFA. In fact, when it comes to simplification, this Government's policy is SFA—by which, of course, I mean the Skills Funding Agency! So why should we believe the Minister when he says he simplifying? He is actually making life far more complicated. Will he take the opportunity at this late stage to introduce amendments to the Bill to reverse those complexities?
	The Minister said that apprenticeships had been revived under this Government. Will he confirm that what has really happened is that level 2 courses that did not previously count as apprenticeships have been redefined, and that training for people at level 3 is actually at a lower level than it was 10 years ago?
	The Minister referred to the importance of replacing migrant workers with better-skilled British workers. We were relieved that he avoided crude BNP slogans such as "British jobs for British workers". We understood the point that he was making: that he thought that a measure of the success of his skills strategy would be a reduced dependency on migrant workers. Will he confirm that since the Government came to office, 1.4 million of the 1.7 million new jobs—more than 80 per cent.—have gone to migrant workers? What, according to the very benchmark that he has offered the House today, does that tell us about his skills strategy?
	Will the Minister confirm that whatever he may say today, in public, about what he is doing for skills and training, separately—in private, within the Department—a very different policy is unfolding? Will he confirm that he was one of the recipients of the paper dated 12 October entitled "Skills Investment Strategy 2010-11", which shows how the Department is proposing to save up to £350 million on some of the very initiatives that he has been talking about today? Will he confirm the validity of the ready reckoner helpfully contained in the internal document, according to which:
	"Removing £100m in the 2010-11 financial year, proportionately across the different levels and funding routes then we would lose a total 133,000 learners from the baseline"?
	Will he confirm that every £100 million of cuts that he is proposing will mean the loss of an extra 133,000 learner places, and that if he raises the full £350 million of savings, a third of a million learners will lose out?
	In his statement, the Minister talked about the rolling out of skills accounts. Will he confirm that the private document that he has received from his advisers in the Department states:
	"we can still... achieve the target £100m by reducing the funding originally planned for the Adult Advancement and Careers Service and by delaying the roll out of Skills Accounts"?
	How can we take the Government seriously on skills or any other subject when they say one thing to the House, while privately preparing a completely different strategy?

Patrick McFadden: Let be begin by graciously welcoming the hon. Gentleman's gracious welcome for the parts of the statement with which he agreed, on UCAS points and a greater emphasis on level 3 apprenticeships. He praised our further education sector, so perhaps it would be unfair of me to point out that the contrast between the state and quality of our further education sector today and its state and quality when his party was in power could not be greater. It was flat on its back. Not a single penny went into renewing the sector towards the end of that period, whereas we have renewed it substantially.
	The hon. Gentleman talked of simplification. It is true that almost everyone who examines this arena agrees that we need a simpler, less cluttered system. He talked of the changes that we propose. Those changes will get rid of nine regional skills bodies, so we are reducing the number of bodies in this territory. The hon. Gentleman talked of events outside the House. I think I am right in saying that he has not been entirely beating the drum with sector skills councils, arguing that their number should be reduced.
	Let me now turn to the hon. Gentleman's final point about a story that appeared in the newspapers in recent days. The information contained in the great secret document he waved was actually announced in this House in the Budget some months ago, and in case anyone had not noticed it in the Budget, the then Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), wrote to the Learning and Skills Council earlier this year setting out the kind of savings we were looking for. We are not cutting apprenticeship numbers. This is old news; it was announced in this House, and it was communicated to the LSC.
	If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about funding, let me ask him whether he will match our commitment to keep up spending on renewing the FE estate. He has not committed to that. Will he confirm that he will abolish the Train to Gain budget entirely? He talks to us about funding, yet he will not match the funding commitment that we have made because we want to increase opportunity and because we recognise the necessity of a high-quality skills system both for individuals and our economic future.

Stephen Williams: I welcome the fact that the Minister of State has come to the House today to make a statement on this announcement, in stark contrast to his colleague, the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, who on Monday made a written statement on the long-awaited fees review, which has angered thousands of students throughout the country, including about 100 presidents of student unions, who are gathered upstairs in Committee Room 11 at present—and I hope to speak to them shortly.
	We thought we had had the Government's vision for skills—the 2020 vision for skills—three years ago in the Leitch report, but the world has, of course, changed completely since then: the United Kingdom economy has experienced six quarters of contraction, and unemployment has increased again today, particularly for young people, among whom unemployment has risen by 15,000. The unemployment rate among 16 to 24-year-olds is 19.8 per cent., which is a far greater proportion than for the population as a whole. Young people have borne the brunt of this recession. Many of them are graduates who had never expected to be in this situation, but the vast bulk are those with skills up to, or including, level 2, thus compounding the long-entrenched problem of those not in education, employment or training.
	We need emergency measures to deal with the recession, as well as a long-term vision for the future of our economy. Does the Minister agree that it is simply ludicrous to expect young people under 24 who are unemployed to have to wait up to 12 months for what he himself described as "crisis help"? It is a pretty strange crisis if they have to wait 12 months for help. Instead, my party has proposed a 90-day guarantee.
	We welcome some of the announcements in the statement. We certainly welcome—I am sure it is a welcome that will be echoed by employers around the country—any proposal to rationalise the quangos that proliferate in the entire skills labyrinth. The most common complaint I hear from all the employers I meet is that they find the skills labyrinth bewildering to negotiate. Does the Minister not agree that sector skills councils ought to be the organisations in the driving seat in respect of saying what are the skills needs of their industry, rather than the RDAs, as seems to be the case under the Government's preferred model?
	If any headline comes out of this statement, I guess it will be yet another target: that 75 per cent. of those aged under 30 should attain either a higher education qualification or an advanced apprenticeship. After 12 years of targets, I wonder whether we need another one in the fag-end period of this Government. Perhaps this is intended to obscure the fact that they will fail to meet the 50 per cent. target for participation in higher education by 2010.
	The statement referred to new university technical colleges. The Government's further education capital programme has been a complete fiasco, so I imagine this does not mean there will be new build. Will the Minister therefore confirm what these new university technical colleges will actually be? Will they be just a rebadging of existing FE provision? FE colleges will also be quite alarmed by the Minister's comment that there will be cuts in what he calls low-priority courses. Will he define what a low-priority course is, or at least give an example of one, from the Dispatch Box today?
	Much of the emphasis in the statement and in the report is on formal provision, but does the Minister agree that there is an important role to be played not only by further education and by government but by social enterprise and charities? I have been impressed by the work done by Fairbridge in my constituency and by the Bristol foyer. Often, that informal provision can lead people, particularly those not in education, employment or training, back into formal learning. We will agree—I am sure that there will be a broad consensus on this—that the future needs of this country will be high-tech and low-carbon, but does he agree that in order to get young people to take the relevant courses, they need good, well resourced and independent advice and guidance from the age of 13 right through their education and their working lives? It is not clear to me that the resources are in place to deliver that. The report is all about long-term vision, but I suspect that the tragedy for the Government is that they are not going to be there to deliver it.

Patrick McFadden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He attacks our 50 per cent. target, but his party does not even support a 50 per cent. target. In fact, its document states:
	"We reject the simplistic 50 per cent. participation target set by the Government".
	He may wish to put a cap on aspiration and ambition, but Labour Members do not. We want to see everyone achieve their potential, which is why we broadened that ambition today by saying that we want not only to expand participation in higher education but to do more on this technician class of apprenticeships and equivalent qualifications, where Britain has been historically weak compared with other countries.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned youth unemployment. Of course unemployment, including youth unemployment, has increased in the recession, but Labour Members will never say that that is a price worth paying. We know the damage it does to families and communities, which is why we have put £5 billion into helping unemployed people get back to work. A particular emphasis for us is on preventing long-term youth unemployment. Even though unemployment has increased, the level of long-term youth unemployment of a year or more is some 80 per cent. lower than it was before this Government came into power. The contrast in the response to this recession compared with the responses to previous ones is that we are not content simply to pay people benefits and leave them there. We want to create second chances for people, which is what this £5 billion investment is focused on doing.
	The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, but I remind him that my right hon. Friend made a statement on the higher education framework in this House just last week, so we have not lacked reporting to the House on this issue. The hon. Gentleman says that he is going to speak to a lobby later, and I am sure he will be outlining his policy on fees in detail to them—it will be interesting for the rest of us to find out what Lib Dem policy on this is.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly praises the role of the third sector in this arena. The Government, too, praise its role, because these organisations do a fantastic job. Last week, I visited a wonderful project run by the Prince's Trust, and other bodies, such as Mencap, Nacro and Rathbone, all do excellent work. Here is the difficult truth: they require Government support to do it. We fund those organisations to the tune of £353 million; the money goes to more than 400 third sector organisations, helping people to expand their opportunities. What we will not do is reduce third sector help in this area to these organisations raising their own money with no Government help. We will not make opportunity dependent on flag day. We will work with the third sector and back it with resources.

Patrick McFadden: I know that hon. Friend has great authority and knowledge of these matters and I listened to what he said with great care and respect. He is right to say that there is an emphasis on the skills system meeting the needs of employers. We do not apologise for that—we are entering a world of rapid change with the shift to a low carbon economy and we have to ensure that employers get the skills that they need from the system. The emphasis on skills accounts empowers the individual, too, and by expanding the number of institutions where skills accounts can be used and, critically, by providing high-quality information to the individual learner we not only meet the needs of the employer, but expand opportunity for the individual. It is critical that the skills system does both those things.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend is familiar with many of the big manufacturing issues in my constituency, but he might not be so familiar with some of the retail related issues. Is he aware that Marks and Spencer, which is about to make its biggest investment for about 18 years in this country—it will invest in 150,000 square feet of new retail in my constituency—is attracted by, among other things, the brilliant partnership between the FE sector and retail? The creation of a retail academy has transformed the life chances of many people from the poorest estates in my constituency.

John Reid: May I welcome this statement and, in particular, the Minister's words about the development of skills accounts? Does he agree that the two essential elements of that development are an extension of the number and range of providers and the passage of information, control, power and, above all, choice to the would-be consumers—that is, the trainees? These are the very elements that have driven an increased and enhanced performance in the health service. Does he expect the same sort of improvements in education and training?

Phil Willis: May I add my thanks for what will be a very interesting report? In particular, I should like to thank the Minister for picking up many of the issues raised by the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee in the wake of the Leitch report, and I echo his comment about individual skills accounts. However, in an act of friendship, I say to him that one of the real beneficiaries in the current unemployment situation—and 750,00 18 to 24-year olds unemployed is something that no party can accept as tolerable—is the Department for Work and Pensions, to which a significant amount of money has been diverted. Has he had conversations with colleagues in the DWP about whether 18 to 24-year olds without level 2 or 3 qualifications can have access full-time courses in FE colleges and keep their jobseeker's allowance while they do? That would give them at least the same recognition as is given to full-time higher education students going to university.

Patrick McFadden: I will take your advice, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee, which does its work in a considered, serious and committed way. In the abridged version, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we work closely with our colleagues in the DWP to make sure that our policies in these areas are lined up together and that we are doing both of the things to which I have referred throughout—enhancing opportunity for individuals, and contributing to our economy even in these difficult times when unemployment is rising.

Patrick McFadden: Two critical things are needed to make skills accounts work and to avoid the problems that happened last time, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The first is proper accreditation for the providers, which we have built into the paper and which will ensure that we have good, high-quality providers giving a high-quality range of choice to individuals. The second thing is to have good information for individual learners, and I refer him to work done by the UK Commission for Education and Skills. The commission has produced a good traffic light system along the lines of food labelling—

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) talked about the importance of the retail industry, but another sector where Britain enjoys enormous strengths that we want to keep and build on is the pharmaceutical industry. That is precisely why it is right for us not only to create a target—a new objective—but to back it up with hard cash for 30,000 new level 3 apprenticeships, thus creating precisely the kind of technical skills in the technician level that are valuable to pharmaceutical companies, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).

Tony Baldry: Crompton Technology in Banbury is a high-tech, low carbon and value-added business. It needs to recruit more than 200 modern technicians just to fulfil its existing business plan. It recently advertised for just 10 people. Notwithstanding receiving 130 responses, it could not fill any of the places because the applicants did not have the right level of skills. Will the Minister spare me just 10 minutes sometime in the near future to discuss how we can fast-track technician training at the local technical college, so that as many as possible of those 200 jobs can go to local unemployed people, rather than going overseas?

Patrick McFadden: In my time as a Minister, I do not think that I have ever refused a meeting with a Member of any party in the House, and I am not about to start doing so now. Of course, I am happy to see the hon. Gentleman, but such skills shortages show precisely the need for the policies that we are outlining today. The kind of low carbon company that he mentioned needs the level 3 skills. That is why we are putting more emphasis on them. They are precisely the kind of skills that will be needed as we come out of the recession and try to support businesses that will contribute to economic growth in the future.

Michael Weir: Much of this area is, of course, devolved. I welcome the fact that the Minister is emulating aspects of the system adopted in Scotland two years ago, but on the UK matter, can he tell us how industry-wide sectors, such as the excellent one for training in the oil and gas industry, will come into the strategy? In particular, will he help them to move on into the low carbon industry, where many of the skills are equally applicable?

Patrick McFadden: I heartily agree that low carbon skills are essential for the future. Therefore, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Scottish National party-led Administration in Scotland do not support the need for a new generation of nuclear power stations to contribute to that, with all the jobs and skills that that would entail. The hon. Gentleman talks the talk, but he will not walk the walk. Labour Members want the population in Scotland to have access to the same high-quality jobs and skills that that transition to low carbon will create as people have in England.

Ian Cawsey: No one would disagree with what my right hon. Friend said about high-value skills, individual empowerment or helping the youth unemployed, but I know that he is aware that there is another group—a hard-to-reach group of people who have been unemployed for a long time and struggle with basic levels of skills in numeracy and literacy. They are what some people describe as the underclass. It is important that we engage with this group, help them to acquire the basic skills that they need to get back into work and encourage them to do so. What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about that?

Patrick McFadden: I take exception to Opposition Members attacking our record on capital spending in further education. Let me give the hon. Gentleman the facts: 700 projects in 300 colleges worth £2.7 billion in expenditure. Contrast that with the amount in the last year that his party was in power: no projects, no colleges, not a single penny.

David Drew: I see that my right hon. Friend wants to simplify the organisational clutter of public bodies delivering skills policy. Will he look at what has happened to Renishaw and Delphi in my constituency, where we put in place some very exciting skills training for those on short-time working? That has taken place, but it has not been at anything like the level that some of us would have liked. Will he look into that to see if this is good learning point so that it can help future skills policy?

Patrick McFadden: I know that my hon. Friend is a strong campaigner for her city and the college there. I remind her of the figure that I quoted a moment ago: we have spent some £2.7 billion on renewing the further education estate. I do not believe that her constituents will disadvantaged by greater power and choice. It is good to give people greater power and choice—to let them drive the system, provided that the providers are properly accredited and that people have good, high-quality information. We are determined to ensure that those two conditions are met.

Stephen Ladyman: This statement heralds a welcome refocusing of activity. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that creating new places for science, technology and engineering is only half the equation—the other half is getting kids to want to fill those places? That will happen only when society holds these professions in greater esteem and we do more to inspire children in these subjects. How do the Government intend to fill that half of the equation?

Lindsay Hoyle: As a member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, I am proud to hear what the Minister said about the support that he is giving to industry in ensuring that it has apprentices for the future. A lot of what he said is for the long term. Leyland Trucks—in Leyland, as one would expect from the name—will benefit through its hybrid truck from the grants and support that can be given to such companies. Will he look to ensure that that support will be there? We should also ensure that we keep people in the workplace, and have another look at a short-time working subsidy for the short term to back up what he said for the long term.

Patrick McFadden: I certainly agree with the first half of what my hon. Friend said. That is why the Government, working with colleagues in the Department for Transport and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, have a low carbon industrial strategy, part of which is designed to ensure that Britain is a leading player in low carbon transport, be it hybrid or electric vehicles. Countries have a simple choice: they either buy these technologies from elsewhere or make an effort to be manufacturers of those technologies. We very much want to take the latter route.

Patrick McFadden: If we think back to the first industrial revolution, much of it was driven by energy resources—coal, steam, gas and oil. Those resources fuelled and funded the technologies of the 20th century. We stand on the brink of a second industrial revolution, which is the shift to low carbon. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of this. The role of RDAs is to work with local authorities, educational resources and employers in their area to fashion a regional strategy that meets the needs locally and regionally. That is a powerful vision, it is something that I believe they will be good at, and it is backed by the document that we have produced today.

Angus MacNeil: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a duty on mobile network operators to introduce automatic roaming capabilities between mobile telephone networks in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
	Just about every Member of the House has a mobile phone, some more than one. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if yours stopped working, and if the lights and buttons still functioned but you could not access the internet, send an SMS or make a phone call. Now imagine that the person sitting next to you could use all the functions of their mobile phone to the fullest. How frustrating would it be to know that your phone had ceased to function while others were working perfectly? That is the problem facing many people in this country daily, particularly in my constituency.
	Mobile phones are as common today as landline phones, and in some cases they may be the only form of communication that a person has. The good people at Ofcom have data that show that more than 80 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom use mobile phones in conjunction with their landline phone, and 12 per cent. only have a mobile phone. It is therefore expected that our mobile phones can send and receive signals with little or no interruption.
	In London, quality mobile phone coverage is expected. To lose coverage for any length of time is deemed unacceptable. In fact, just a one-hour loss of 3G voice coverage on the O2 network in London last month warranted media attention. Now there are plans to extend mobile coverage to the underground, as it has been in cities such as Stockholm.
	Surely, with the growth of mobile phone networks, we should also have an expectation of an expansion of the mobile network over the entire United Kingdom. The Bill would bring about a duty on mobile phone providers to allow roaming between networks within the UK, which is a variation of a system that is currently practised in the United States and does not need the building of any more costly physical infrastructure. It just needs better use of what is already there.
	The Bill would benefit the entire UK mobile network. Although mobile coverage lost for an hour in London is a serious enough problem for the media, rural constituencies often rely totally on the strength of a mobile signal. People in my constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar are exposed to failures of the network more than most, because of the remoteness of the isles. Gale-force winds may damage a transmitter or mast, and when that goes down one mobile network signal may deactivate while another is still working. My constituents therefore ask why they cannot use the strongest working signal.
	Recently in Carloway, on the Isle of Lewis in my constituency, there was a period of more than five weeks without mobile coverage. That means that people who depend predominantly on mobile networks, such as volunteer first responders, could not make calls or help to co-ordinate emergency services. Those people provide first aid when needed and direct ambulance services to an incident site. In my constituency, it could take an hour or more to get an ambulance to a house, but a first responder could be there within minutes provided that they could receive emergency calls. The problem was exacerbated beyond the original delay when a dispute arose between Orange and the landowners of the mast. Most of the people affected in Carloway have landline coverage, but as well as the inconvenience of losing their mobile coverage, they still had to pay their monthly tariff for a service that they did not receive. Businesses that relied on mobile services were unable to operate at full efficiency.
	That is not the only case of extreme coverage loss in my area. In the past two years, my constituents went without mobile coverage in September 2008 when Vodafone coverage was lost for two weeks; in June 2009 for two weeks; in July 2009 for one week; and, most recently, for more than five weeks when Orange coverage was lost between September and November. That is just on the island of Lewis, and other islanders and people in other areas of the constituency have similar stories to tell.
	The problem could be alleviated in many instances if people could roam to a functioning network. That would also help the coverage and the amount of calls made, which would surely increase, and the companies' revenue would also increase if they co-operated and improved their geographical patchwork rather than having people inconvenienced and out of contact.
	Indeed, perhaps mobile phones have been an unheralded facilitator of modern economic growth. An oft-quoted 2005 study from the London Business School found that when 10 or more out of 100 people in developing countries start using cell phones, gross domestic product rises by 0.59 per cent. per capita. Some studies have found even higher rises in GDP. Thus, as well as convenience, we should appreciate the economic benefits to areas that probably need them most, not only overseas but in this country.
	Many people all over the UK will have experienced being cut off during calls as they enter blackspots. The Bill would reduce that phenomenon markedly by allowing people to piggyback on to another network. Of course, networks deserve praise because they have delivered great benefits and convenience to people's lives. They, too, in credit crunch times have cost restrictions. They are innovative in bringing 3G to people's homes through broadband connections of more than 1 megabit, although at a cost. Happily, T-Mobile tells me that it has great coverage up the entire A9—the spine of Scotland. Good stuff indeed.
	Public policy through Ofcom wants five competing networks. There is some work on network consolidation, but clearly not enough, or I would not be standing here. I know people who have two mobile phones because their mobility is such that no one mobile network can serve their needs. Surely that contradicts the idea of mobile telephony. Contacting and texting those people is difficult because one has to send two messages and, invariably when one phones, they are in the area served by their second mobile phone. I think that that is known as sod's law.
	I am not sure where that leaves aims for a Digital Britain. The Home Office paper, "Protecting the public in a changing communications environment", would better serve the public by enabling roaming than by some of the other activities planned for e-mails and such like.
	Now, a burden is placed on the consumer to find the ability to access more than one network. Consumers sometimes have to purchase more than one SIM card—or, indeed, more than one phone. Surely that is a highly inefficient way of delivering a service to the public. Why should consumers have to buy more than one SIM card or phone to get the maximum coverage for a mobile service that already exists?
	It is not the first time that such a Bill has been introduced. Last year, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) presented a similar measure. If the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells—a south-eastern English constituency with far better 2G and 3G coverage than mine—has similar concerns to those of my rural island constituency, it shows the vastness of the problem.
	The measure is surely in the best interests of the consumer and the industry. Allowing consumers to roam automatically is tantamount to free advertising. If one discovers that one's contracted network is constantly down and one finds oneself on the strongest network, it would be prudent to move contracts. The best providers would thereby receive the most customers, and customers would have access to the best service. Surely that is an incentive to industry not to take its customers for granted. I wonder whether the status quo is too cosy for the mobile companies.
	The market often needs a legislative push to work for rural customers and improve the service for urban customers. As has been said previously, we can get money from cash points operated by different banks that are free of charge because they benefit the customer and the industry. Surely we should expect the same from our mobile network. We hear much these days about fiscal stimulus, but it is phone stimulus that Parliament must give the country and the people.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Angus MacNeil, Angus Robertson, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mark Durkan, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, Pete Wishart, Mr. Mike Weir, Andrew George, Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, David Davis, Greg Clark and Michael Fabricant present the Bill.
	Mr. Angus MacNeil accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 166).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23 February 2009 (Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments 
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages 
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— ( Kevin Brennan.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 217.

Kevin Brennan: Let me take this opportunity to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for their contribution to the Bill so far. I am sure that to many hon. Members in the Chamber the Bill will seem like an old friend, having started its journey in this House back in February. It has been away for a long holiday and has now come back, perhaps a little fatter than before—changes were made to the Bill in the other place—but in pretty good shape as a result.
	In response to the views expressed in both Houses, Lords amendments 1 and 2 provide a clear definition of what it means to complete an apprenticeship in England and Wales respectively. We have ensured that employed status is a key element of an apprenticeship. Where the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers propose to allow some flexibility, we have ensured that the regulations setting out the alternative completion conditions will be subject to affirmative resolution.
	The clauses dealing with the contents of the specification of apprenticeship standards in England and Wales now include explicit requirements for an apprenticeship framework not only to include both on-the-job and off-the-job training, but to specify relevant occupational competences and technical knowledge. Under the relevant new clauses, together with Lords amendments 4, 6 and 7, we have removed the provision for English and Welsh apprenticeship agreements. That means that if a person enters into an apprenticeship agreement in connection with either an English or a Welsh framework, regardless of where they work, they will be issued with a certificate in England or Wales respectively, provided that they meet the requirements.
	We have already made a clear commitment to the House that framework-issuing authorities will be the sector skills councils and other sectoral bodies. To provide further assurance to such bodies, amendment 8 removes the power of the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to designate a person to issue frameworks generally, which we no longer consider necessary.

Kevin Brennan: Not only is that reduction widely rumoured to be the Government's preference, but there has just been a statement to the House outlining that very policy. As usual, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you want to keep something a secret, announce it in the House of Commons—I have always found that to be a useful way of going about things. That reduction, which was announced in the White Paper that was published earlier today, has to be made in conjunction and collaboration with employers. The White Paper makes it clear that the UK Commission for Employment and Skills will work with the sector skills councils to bring about that sharp reduction in the number of sector skills councils, which is a response to what employers tell us about the complexity of the skills system.

John Hayes: What the White Paper says—I have it here—is that the number of sector skills councils will be reduced to nine. The rumour is that the Government have rather less regard than the Opposition for sector skills councils, and that there may be further reductions, in both their capacity and budget. We would resist that hotly. However, given that we know from the leaked report that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke about earlier that there are plans for swingeing cuts, we want an absolute assurance that those cuts will not affect sector skills councils or their capacity to deal with the matters that the Minister has just outlined.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman should not listen to too many rumours. The figure of nine is nowhere to be found, and will certainly not be found in that document. The figures for savings in the document to which he referred were announced to the House in the Budget back in March, proving my point that if you want to keep something a secret, Madam Deputy Speaker, you should announce it to the House of Commons. However, I had better get back to the Bill before somebody notices that we have strayed from the Lords amendments that we are considering.
	Lords amendments 9, 10, 13 and 14 provide that a framework may be issued only if the issuing authority is satisfied that it meets the specification for apprenticeship standards. We have made it clear that we would expect the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to consult widely with employers and their representatives on the draft specification for apprenticeship standards for England. Indeed, much of that consultation has already taken place, in anticipation of the Bill's becoming law. However, in response to concerns expressed in the other place, Lords amendments 16 and 17 place a duty on the chief executive to consult on the specification for apprenticeship standards for England with representatives of employers, further education institutions and other providers of training, as well as those persons designated to issue frameworks and any other persons specified in regulations.
	In Committee in the other place, concerns were raised about some of the terms used in the Bill. Lords amendments 82 to 85, 87 to 94 and 99 to 110 replace the term "scheme" with "offer" throughout the Bill. Lords amendment 89 reflects the fact that young people are entitled to elect for the apprenticeship offer, although the amendment does not alter the substance of the offer itself.
	Concerns were also expressed about the use of the term "principal" qualification to represent the course of training for the competence element, which is a framework requirement. It was not our intention to imply a hierarchy of qualifications within an apprenticeship framework. It is our view that what makes an apprenticeship unique, compared with other learning pathways, is the combination of vocational, technical and key skills qualifications, along with the mix of off-the-job learning and on-the-job application and the refinement of skills. The intention is made clearer in the Bill by Lords amendments 11, 15, 21, 26, 28, 29 and 30 to 33, all of which replace "principal" with "competencies" in describing the qualification for England and Wales.
	In Committee in both Houses there was considerable debate about the need for greater flexibility of access to the apprenticeship offer for people with learning difficulties and disabilities, and, indeed, to apprenticeships more generally. Lords amendments 91 and 105 make changes to the apprenticeship offer qualifying criteria to address those concerns. Lords amendment 91 provides the flexibility to extend the apprenticeship offer to young people with disabilities, who might take longer to become ready to start an apprenticeship, up to the age of 25. Lords amendment 105 will enable young people with disabilities who might find it difficult to achieve the entry qualifications to provide alternative evidence that they are ready to embark on an apprenticeship. We are committed to working with the Special Education Consortium, with Skill, and with other groups with an interest in young people with disabilities, to ensure that the regulations strike the right balance between ensuring that as broad a range of young people as possible can take advantage of the apprenticeship offer and ensuring that standards are maintained.
	Lords amendments 106 and 107 require the Secretary of State to consult Ofqual about the level of the qualifications that he intends to use in specifying and amending requirements for the apprenticeship offer. The original clause on careers education was interpreted by some as requiring schools to give pupils information about apprenticeships only when the person giving the advice thought it appropriate. The new clause inserted by Lords amendment 158 explicitly states that pupils must receive information on
	"options available in respect of 16-18 education or training, and...apprenticeships."
	Lords amendment 114 makes explicit our expectation that everyone who successfully completes an apprenticeship at level 2 should also be able to aspire to achieve a level 3. It places a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding Agency to promote that progression. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is not in his place at the moment, will particularly welcome that measure. I should like to thank him and other members of the Skills Commission for their work and for the report, "Progression through apprenticeships", which came out in March. We welcome the report, and I will shortly write to my hon. Friend and his co-chair with the Government's response to the commission's recommendations. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) in that regard.
	There was strength of feeling about the importance of engaging employers in apprenticeships, and amendments 16 and 17 make it explicit that representatives of employers, further education colleges and other training providers must be consulted on the specification of apprenticeship standards for England.
	Amendment 160 makes regulations that deal with the Secretary of State's power to specify apprenticeship sectors, subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament. That amendment was made on the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which recommended that the power be subject to the negative resolution procedure rather than to no procedure.
	Finally, amendment 173 was made in Committee in the Lords to give effect to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's recommendations on which of the regulation powers should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It makes the changes necessary by amending section 236 on orders and regulations of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as it is under that Act that the time to train regulations will be made. The Committee wished to see a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny applied to the following powers: in section 63D(2)(b), a power to specify any further conditions that an application must satisfy in order to qualify as an application under section 63D; in section 63D(6)(a), a power to specify any conditions about the duration of employment that an employee must satisfy in order to qualify for the right; in section 63D(7)(f), a power to specify further categories of people who may not make an application; and in section 63F(7)(j), a power to specify further permissible grounds of refusal. We are happy to follow the Committee's recommendations in that regard.
	This is an historic Bill—the first Bill of its kind dealing with apprenticeships for more than 200 years. It follows on from the Statute of Artificers back in the 16th century, which, among other things, made provision that apprentices should not be allowed to drink beer on a Friday night. That is one amendment that we have not had from the House of Lords, but I commend the Bill and urge the House to agree to Lords amendment 1.

John Hayes: It is a great pleasure to return to these matters. As the Minister said, it has been a long journey, but not an entirely unhappy one. The Bill has certainly been improved by consideration in Committee here and more especially in the other place. It is the Lords' views on these matters, of course, that we are considering today.
	I press the Minister on the issue of sector skills councils, which formed an important part of his opening remarks. I think that a real difference is emerging between those who see a sectoral approach to the management and funding of skills as pivotal and those who prefer the role of the regional development agencies, which are given new life and new power in the White Paper published today. I think that the tension in the end is not a happy one. We want more power given to sector skills councils in respect of the matters we are considering. We view them as pivotal, as I said, to the funding and management of skills. I am not sure that the Government have a coherent view of the relationship between those sector councils and the regions that have been given new powers.
	When we debated these matters earlier in the Bill's progress, we proposed an amendment to specify a definition of apprenticeships, which included the following components: agreement with employers to train a person using the practices, equipment and personnel of his or her enterprise in so doing; a mixture of on and off-the-job training; and training designed to lead to generally recognised levels of proficiency in a trade, profession or occupation.
	The Minister will know that when those matters were taken up in the Lords, there was a Division, which the Government lost. The amendment that we are considering in respect of the definition of apprenticeship is a result of that Division and the subsequent concessions made by the Government to the case put by Opposition Members. I do not want to crow about that, which I think would be unworthy—and, actually, a little vulgar, which is something that I would certainly not want to be described as. None the less, it has to be said that—grudgingly, hesitantly, falteringly—the Government have moved to the position articulated all those months ago by both Conservative and, in fairness, Liberal Democrat spokesmen, and, indeed, supported by Members of the other place of all political persuasions, so the Government have finally conceded that we do indeed need a definition of an apprenticeship.
	Why, it may be asked, is that so important? Let me answer that rhetorical question. It is important because the apprenticeship brand matters. Unless we define an apprenticeship, there is a real prospect that that brand will be diluted. It is essential for people to know what an apprenticeship comprises—important to employers, important to potential apprentices, and important to wider society. People need to know that an apprenticeship confers real competences which lead to greater employability. That is why a definition of apprenticeship is so critical. That is precisely what the Lords argued, and it is in part what is said in the Government amendment that we are considering, which emanates from the Lords. However, we remain concerned about the provision in the amendment for "alternative... completion conditions". We are a little anxious that that may prove to be a loophole allowing the devising and delivery of apprenticeships that do not contain the core components that I described earlier.
	Let me say at the outset that I do not in any way underestimate the role or significance of pre-apprenticeship training. I know that many organisations, some of which were mentioned in the House earlier today, do excellent work in providing people with the skills that are necessary before they move on to a full apprenticeship, and I pay tribute to that work. I do not think that there is much difference between us and the Government in that regard. We do, however, seek an assurance from the Government that the provision does not constitute a loophole, and that it will not be used liberally or permissively to undo the good work attempted in the rest of the amendment.
	We accept the Government's position that alternative completion conditions may be used to allow pre-apprenticeships for up to six months, but it is not possible to complete a full apprenticeship in that way. Surely the six months count only if a proper apprenticeship follows them. We are pleased that the Government have conceded the need to insert a duty to consult employers for those drawing up draft apprenticeship specifications. The standards that employers will set will be critical to the success of those apprenticeships, for the reasons that I cited earlier relating to both the competences that they deliver and people's faith in the brand.
	In the other place, Lord De Mauley said:
	"The Government trumpeted the arrival of this Bill, saying that it would bring in a statutory entitlement to an apprenticeship for 16 to 18 year-olds. A definition of that entitlement therefore seemed, to us and many others, crucial. Apprentices, employers, employees and the wider public need absolute clarity about what this entails and what the qualification means. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said in Committee in June, the Bill is not just about creating more apprenticeships but about ensuring that they remain a respected brand, with people feeling that they are being given a real career opportunity and delivered a quality experience."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 17-18.]
	In 2006, the Adult Learning Inspectorate warned:
	""Some apprentices can potentially achieve the full requirements of the apprenticeship framework without having to set foot in a workplace".
	I raised the point in the House at more or less that time, and, although Ministers are shaking their heads, I think that it was feared across the Chamber that unless we strengthened the definition of apprenticeships—unless we retained what might be called the sovereignty of the brand—employers, learners and the wider public would lose faith in apprenticeships. We have made some progress, therefore. We welcome the additional clarification supplied by the amendments, as it was necessary.
	I shall make one further contextual point, because we need to nail once and for all the misunderstanding—that is a parliamentary way of putting it—about apprenticeship numbers. This issue was debated again in the House today, at Prime Minister's questions. The number of level 3 apprenticeships has not grown; it has fallen. The number of apprenticeships as a whole has grown, but the number of starts at all levels is, as it were, struggling, as the Government know.

John Hayes: As the Minister knows, I am both straightforward and generous, and I have said on the record in the House that progress has been made on completions. However, in a similar spirit of straightforwardness—and even, perhaps, of a little generosity—the Minister might acknowledge that the number of level 3 apprenticeships has not met Government targets and has come nowhere near what the Prime Minister has repeatedly predicted, both as Chancellor and in his current role. That has inevitably led to doubts about the effectiveness of the Government's policy on level 3 apprenticeships. This is not a matter of partisan contention; it is simply a matter of fact. However, we must now move on, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would chide us if we did not because we are straying from the subjects we should be debating.
	I need to say a few words about the amendments that deal with careers advice for apprenticeships. We originally proposed an amendment that was intended to ensure that schools provide information about apprenticeships as a key route to a particular occupation or trade alongside other education and training options for 16 to 18-year-olds. Government amendment 158 does not make it necessary for young people in schools to be informed specifically about the value of apprenticeships as a route to a skilled job, and there is a great danger that pupils who would find such advice valuable will not receive it. It is vitally important that we improve careers advice.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record as the chairman of the all-party group on skills, and he is a diligent and knowledgeable speaker and thinker on these subjects. I do not wish to embarrass him by creating a gap between his position and that of his Front-Bench colleagues, but he is not unsympathetic to the Conservative policy of an all-age careers service with a presence in every school and college and also a high street presence, sitting alongside Connexions. Certainly, that is the impression I have got from him informally, when discussing these matters over a number of years. I think that we ask too much of teachers when we expect them to be both good teachers and good careers advisers, and that we need to re-professionalise the careers service in the way I have just described—and, to be frank, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are far apart on that.
	My reason for holding this opinion is that, as the Government know, the polling evidence suggests that teachers are struggling to give advice on vocational routes, even when many young people would welcome such advice. In 2008, a YouGov poll on the issue revealed that only 24 per cent. of teachers felt that apprenticeships were a good alternative to A-levels. Interestingly, by contrast, 55 per cent. of employers and 52 per cent. of young people themselves thought that they were a good option. It is essential that pupils get the best possible advice and the most detailed and accurate information on both academic options and vocational routes. We were pleased that the Government accepted our argument on that point, to the degree in which this amendment deals with those matters—I hope that that is sufficiently generous for the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden).
	Lord De Mauley has done a splendid job in the other place in attempting to improve this Bill, and I pay tribute to his sterling work. He argued:
	"The Government propose amendments to the Education Act that would ensure that the provision of a programme of careers education includes information on education, training and apprenticeships."
	However—I should say to the hon. Gentleman that this is why I added a caveat to my welcome—he went on to say:
	"They have not, however, taken the opportunity to make statutory and effective changes to the careers education system. As things stand, in about two-thirds of schools in England, careers advice is given by teachers with no professional qualification in the field. Further advice may come from the Connexions service, which replaced the careers service in 2001."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 44.]
	As this House knows, Connexions is a service that must provide advice on all manner and means of subjects—lifestyle issues, as well as careers. Again, I think we ask rather too much of Connexions advisers when we ask them to be authorities on every kind of career and also able to advise on drugs, sexual health and all sorts of other pertinent matters. A decline in the quality of advice, particularly about vocational options, seems to be the result of that change in 2001, and it must be dealt with promptly and decisively.
	I should add at this point, because it is relevant to this amendment, that it is vital that we establish a clear and seductive vocational pathway that matches the well-established and transparent academic path which so many of us followed. Most of the people in this Chamber will have done GCSEs—the older among us will have done O-levels—then A-levels and then a degree, and perhaps then a further degree. The clarity of that option means that many take it who, given other advice, might perfectly properly, because of their tastes and aptitudes, take a vocational pathway. That pathway is altogether less clear and perhaps, as a result, less accessible. Our determination in all these matters is to create just that kind of clear, accessible pathway and proper advice on it.

John Hayes: I shall simply say to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) in all such matters, and he tells me that "they will not be excluded"—quote, unquote.  [Interruption.] We must move on. The amendments to clause 30 deal with certification.  [Interruption.]

John Hayes: I am immensely grateful for your benevolence, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will have his chance to speak later. [Interruption.] Much later, actually.
	The amendments relating to certification address concerns raised by Lord Layard that the Bill introduced the perception of a possible hierarchy of qualifications where "occupational competencies"—national vocational qualifications—were seen as more important than the demonstration of technical knowledge. The Government amendments remove that perception, so that it is obvious that the two component parts of an apprenticeship are seen as being of equal weight and as equal conditions of completion. We welcome the further moves that the Government have made in this regard. Throughout the Bill's passage through both this House and the other place we have constantly called for further definition and clarification as to the composition and requirements of an apprenticeship.
	That brings us back to the issue of reinforcing the brand in the eyes of all those concerned. Fundamentally, we need to ensure that what is taught and tested delivers real competences that match economic need and add to the individual's employability. That is the bottom line of an apprenticeship; indeed, it is what most people think that an apprenticeship should be in all cases. That seems to me to be relatively straightforward. The issues about certification are closely linked to the amendments on the other matters that I have raised—those on advice and guidance and on definition.
	In summary on this group of amendments, because I know that we have a lot to consider and that other Members will be eager to contribute to the debate, they are important because apprenticeships are important. The Opposition see them at the heart of a policy to meet the nation's skills needs and to provide opportunities to thousands—indeed, to hundreds of thousands—of our citizens. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you take a keen interest in these matters, that the Opposition hope to create 100,000 new apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship training places each year. You will not be surprised to hear that we are pleased that grudgingly, falteringly and rather slowly, but none the less essentially in the right spirit, the Government have moved a little closer to the common-sense position of the Conservative party.

John Hayes: I shall not delay the hon. Gentleman, but I am familiar with both of the reports from the all-party group. In fact, I was a witness for both. He made a point about older learners and, as he said, the report on women emphasises the importance of making training opportunities available to women in their 20s. He will be as shocked as I am, therefore, to hear of the leaked Government document that suggests that funding for adult apprenticeships—just the sort of people to whom he has referred—is to be cut by 10 per cent.

Stephen Williams: I would like to begin by welcoming the Minister to our proceedings on this Bill. Two different Departments were responsible for the Bill when we began our progress with it through the House of Commons, but since then not only has there been a complete transformation of the ministerial team, but a completely new ministry has been created. In fact, I think that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is the sole survivor of the joint Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and Department for Children, Schools and Families ministerial team. Of course, if the rumours are true, he wanted to move somewhere else as well.
	I should like to thank our colleagues in the House of Lords who have considered the Bill at great length in Committee because it is much improved from how we left it at the end of our proceedings. I thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues—Baroness Walmsley, Baroness Garden and, in particular, Baroness Sharp of Guildford, who has spoken for my party for many years on higher education and skills and who is now stepping down from her Front-Bench role. When summing up for the Government in the House of Lords last night on Third Reading, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin was generous in her tributes to my colleagues and mentioned the staff who back them up, and, in that respect, I should like to mention Tim Oliver.
	The Lords gave the Bill serious consideration. It is rather disappointing that we have rather truncated proceedings today—just three hours to consider more than 200 amendments—and that is one of the reasons why I will try to be brief in my remarks.
	I welcome three areas in the improved Bill—first, Lords amendment 16, which recognises that other people should be involved in developing the apprenticeship framework. Including the sector skills councils and further education colleges in the discussions leading to a framework was the subject of many amendments in Committee in the Commons, but those amendments were stoutly resisted. It is welcome that the Government now recognise that sector skills councils, as representatives of employers who know their industries in depth, have a crucial role to play. They, rather than regional development agencies, should be the drivers of speaking up for employers. I welcome the fact that other private sector providers will be involved also.
	I welcome the assurances that were given in another place that full consideration will be given to ensuring that there is a good pathway for young people and adults who suffer from disabilities, to ensure that apprenticeships are genuinely open to all. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) spoke about those matters in Committee.
	I want to concentrate on the subject that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made the centrepiece of his speech: the information, advice and guidance given to young people as part of their educational journey. Clause 35 as we considered it only allowed for the providers of information, advice and guidance—most likely to be teachers in their schools—to consider what they felt was in the best interests of the young people in their charge and did not require them specifically to mention the opportunity of taking up an apprenticeship place. That was certainly resisted not only by me, but by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). If that provision has been withdrawn and the expectation is that, as he said, apprenticeships and vocational training will be advocated by the providers of information, advice and guidance, that is certainly a welcome step forward.
	As the hon. Member for Blackpool, South rightly said, information, advice and guidance must be aspirational if it is to achieve its purpose. He specifically mentioned women. Like him, I played a part in the all-party skills group report as well. We must ensure that people from all walks of life participate in apprenticeships in future. It is not right that only 2 per cent. of the people on engineering apprenticeships are women. Equally, it is not right that only about 2 per cent. of the people who take up a children and young people teaching apprenticeship are men. Both those gender imbalances need to be challenged.
	It is also right that the information, advice and guidance must say that a vocational pathway is an attractive career option for young people. I have heard so many times, not just in Bristol but cited elsewhere as well—I do not think that it is an apocryphal story—about a teacher taking a group of young people around a high-tech factory and saying that it was important that her young charges saw it because, if they did not work hard, that is where they would end up. Unfortunately, some attitudes to vocational training need to be challenged, and the Bill will now at least contribute to challenging some of those long-entrenched views.
	It is important that the providers of information, advice and guidance make it clear that an apprenticeship can be an end in itself, and a good one. I am slightly worried about a dislocation in Government thinking. We are still digesting the contents of the skills White Paper that was launched a couple of hours ago. There was much concentration in that report on a pathway from an apprenticeship to higher education. We must not assume that higher education is the ultimate aspiration that everyone should try to achieve. An advanced apprenticeship could be a satisfying career pathway for young people.

Kevin Brennan: I thank the hon. Members who contributed to this interesting debate from which we learned new things. Thanks to the intervention from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), we learned that the Conservative Opposition will publish the vocational results in a separate league table. Presumably they will—

Nick Gibb: May I put the Minister out of his misery? What we want to do—what our policy says we would like to do—is to have as much information as possible made available to parents about the results that a school produces. Whatever those qualifications are, they should be published by the school to give parents the maximum information.

Kevin Brennan: rose—

Kevin Brennan: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a relevance, as I shall show in a moment.
	The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made a new distinction between "what we want" and "what our policy says we want". We all know what he means—that there will be one league table for the academic results, which in his eyes will be the equivalent of the premiership, and another league table, which will be the equivalent of the Vauxhall conference, because there is no commitment to parity of esteem for vocational education from the Opposition. That is what the Bill and the amendments are about.
	In his usual entertaining and eloquent way, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) told us his position and welcomed many of the amendments, as I did in my opening remarks. He tried, in typical and understandable fashion, to open up a false dichotomy or distinction between the Government's position on sector skills councils and regional development agencies. Both are important. It was important for the hon. Gentleman to make his point because he wants to cut regional development agencies, despite the huge multiplier effect that they have on local economies, as has been shown by research. He wants to cut them away, if he ever gets the opportunity to do so.
	We recognise that both are important in the skills agenda. Regional skills strategies will reflect the relevant national and sectoral priorities, and regional development agencies will work with sector skills councils, employers, local authorities and others to ensure that those sectoral priorities are articulated. There is no dilution of commitment by the Government to the sector skills councils, which we helped to set up and with which we work closely.
	I will not go into the hon. Gentleman's anxious desire yet again to wave his so-called secret document, except to remind the House that it was agreed as part of this year's Budget that we would be seeking the savings outlined in the document to which he refers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in his previous role as Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, wrote publicly to the Learning and Skills Council in May this year outlining that.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to level 3 apprenticeships. The expansion of those apprenticeships announced in the White Paper earlier this afternoon was widely welcomed across the House. In recent years, the proportion of level 3 apprenticeship starts has remained at about 30 per cent., increasing to 32 per cent. in 2007-08 and 34 per cent. in 2008-09. In fact, they are at an all-time high because the number of apprenticeships has been growing generally, so I think that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree on that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the alternative completion conditions constituted a loophole in terms of the standard of apprenticeships. The regulations will set down the criteria for alternative completion conditions, and they will require affirmative resolutions in both Houses. I can assure him that those conditions do not create a loophole. Those conditions are necessary in order to ensure, for example, that apprentices who are made redundant may complete their apprenticeship on an unpaid basis, and to deliver pre-apprenticeship contract periods for young people on third sector schemes— mentioned in the House earlier this afternoon—provided by organisations such as Barnardo's and Rathbone. Indeed, those conditions were included in the Bill very much at the request of organisations that engage in that kind of pre-apprenticeship training. I hope that those remarks have reassured him.

John Hayes: While the Minister is in the mood to give assurances, can he finally wrap up the matter of sector skills councils? The amendments, reinforced by some of the remarks in the White Paper—although I feel that there is a contradiction between the RDAs and SSCs in this respect—make it clear that sector skills councils will play a critical role in approving qualifications. How can that be squared with the rationalisation of their number given their diverse range of responsibilities and the very wide range of those qualifications?

Kevin Brennan: I am confident that, as we speak, sector skills councils and employer-led organisations are working together to rationalise their number because they themselves recognise that there are too many bodies and that there is therefore a need for such rationalisation. They do not want Government to specify a particular number, and we have not done so, for the very reason that there should be an employer-led approach. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome a decluttering of the skills system, particularly where it is employer-led, as in this case, and given that it has been recommended by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills and that employers are working together to bring this about in a manner that makes sense for the economy and for those industries and sectors. He is right to point out that the amendments strengthen and clarify the role of sector skills councils in relation to apprenticeship frameworks.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned careers and information advice and guidance, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). A careers profession taskforce is to be established, and it will report in 2010. Careers education and statutory guidance for schools, including comprehensive information and advice on apprenticeships, will be part of that, and adherence will be inspected by Ofsted. There will be a full-scale review of the requirements of careers specialists and the Teacher Development Agency in relation to resources and professional development for all teachers. We are creating a new adult advancement and careers service, working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus. Once that is up and running, then we will, in 2011, consider the effectiveness of those arrangements for joint working and whether any further changes are needed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South made an extremely thoughtful and interesting contribution about information, advice and guidance, reminding us that this is not about putting extra burdens on teaching professionals. He also reminded us about the ways that young people these days like to access and experience information, advice and guidance on careers. His contribution was extremely helpful.

John Hayes: Before the Minister sits down, will he say a word about amendments 84 to 86—those recommended by Lord Layard?

Iain Wright: The amendments are concentrated on crucial changes to the machinery of government to improve the delivery of education to young people and adults, and they demonstrate that we have listened to and taken seriously concerns from all sections of this House and the other place and worked hard to address them.
	As the House will recall, local authorities will be supported in their new central role in commissioning services for 16 to 19-year-olds by the new Young People's Learning Agency. "Supported" is the right word, because the YPLA will be there to assist local authorities, not tell them what to do. That was always our clear intention. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have listened to those who were concerned that that principle was not always obvious, and we have accordingly made a series of amendments to clarify our intention and make it more explicit in the Bill.
	Lords amendment 67 stipulates that when the YPLA uses its powers to commission provision, it must have regard to things done by local authorities as they perform their new duties in relation to young people aged 16 to 19, those aged 19 to 25 with a learning difficulty assessment and those subject to youth detention. Lords amendment 68 means that the YPLA will have to have approval from the Secretary of State before giving a direction to a local authority that is failing, or likely to fail, in its duties to secure provision for those groups of young people. I am due shortly to publish a consultation draft of the national commissioning framework, and I want to make it clear in that document that the powers in question will be used only as a very last resort and after all options of support and challenge have been explored and exhausted.
	Lords amendment 70 extends the YPLA's duty to issue guidance to local authorities to cover other aspects of their new role.
	Lords amendment 71 would give the YPLA a duty to consult local authorities and other persons it considered appropriate before issuing guidance about performance by local authorities of their new duties.
	Lords amendments 179 and 180 set out that the first chief executive is to be appointed by the Secretary of State and later chief executives will be appointed by the YPLA, subject to the Secretary of State's approval. That is entirely consistent with the approach to other non-departmental public bodies. I know that the Opposition have some concerns about that, but, having listened to the anxieties expressed in the other place, we are of the opinion that the recruitment of an executive employee should be carried out by the employer—in this instance, the YPLA—rather than be a public appointment by the Secretary of State. We do not believe that the amendment would lead to an increased separation of the YPLA from the Secretary of State, but that it gives the YPLA, like other NDPBs, a sensible amount of power to appoint its own chief executive, subject to approval by the Secretary of State.

Iain Wright: Last year, I took the Housing and Regeneration Bill through the House, and the appointment of the chief executive of the Homes and Communities Agency was almost entirely—word for word—consistent with the approach in the Bill. We are clear that that will not affect the clear lines of ministerial responsibility for the YPLA. The Secretary of State, through his remit letter to the YPLA, will set out the tasks that it must perform, including any necessary operational details, and the YPLA will be accountable to the Secretary of State, and hence to Parliament, for its performance and management. Its funding will be accounted for in the Department's expenditure plans. Under clause 75, the Secretary of State can give directions to the YPLA.
	We had included a requirement for the YPLA, the Skills Funding Agency and local authorities to avoid provision that might give rise to disproportionate expenditure. Concerns were raised in another place that that could result in higher cost provision for learners with special needs no longer being made available—a possible get-out clause. That was never our intention. To minimise such concerns, we have removed the phrase "disproportionate expenditure". However, it is important to point out that we still expect those bodies to make the best use of their resources. Local authorities are already subject to best value duties under the Local Government Act 1999. The YPLA and the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency are still required by the Bill to make the best use of their resources.
	Lords amendment 41 introduces a requirement to consult governing bodies and other relevant parties before a local authority exercises its power to direct a college to take a named individual. I must stress that that is not a new power, but an existing power, which the Learning and Skills Council already has. The amendment would make explicit in the Bill the need for local authorities not to force through their wishes without consideration for governing bodies, but to consult any relevant colleges.
	Although the majority of young people will find a suitable place to study further education with relative ease, we must ensure that local authorities have the tools and levers at their disposal to support the minority of young people who may struggle to find a suitable place of learning where they can thrive and achieve. In exercising that power, local authorities will be required to have regard to any guidance provided by the Secretary of State. We imagine that such a power would be used only in exceptional circumstances, and only once a young person, supported by independent advice and guidance, often through the local Connexions service, has exhausted all the available options. The amendment is particularly important to enable local authorities to support some of our more vulnerable groups of young people, such as ex-offenders, children in care or care leavers, who often face additional barriers to participation, to find a place to continue their education.
	The powers are particularly relevant and necessary in the context of the historic legislation to raise the participation age. We want to ensure that no young person is disadvantaged and considered in default of their statutory duties just because they have been unable to find a suitable learning place. We believe that the change brought about by the amendment, which reflects what we would expect local authorities to do anyway, will help to reassure colleges about the use of that power.
	Sixth-form colleges are some of our most successful educational institutions, popular with pupils and parents. I should like to mention Hartlepool sixth-form college, where I came from, which, in one of its first public acts since opening its new £24 million redevelopment, courtesy of Government money, played host on Friday evening to the BBC's "Any Questions?" and is a great example of the high-quality educational offer that sixth-form colleges can provide. The Bill will build on that success by creating a separate sixth-form college designation, enabling them to evolve as a sector.
	Lords amendment 182 reduces the period before a sixth-form college can redesignate as a further education college from five to two years. Lords amendments 181 and 183 to 186 create a requirement for local authorities and the YPLA to consult governing bodies before using their powers to appoint governors. Again, we always expected that that would happen. Although the creation of the new designation has been generally popular, we hope that the changes in the Lords amendments will help to reassure sixth-form colleges about the operation of the new arrangements, and in particular show our intention to preserve the autonomy of sixth-form college governing bodies.
	Lords amendments 34 to 37, 40, 42, 74, 77, 78, 81, 82, 116 and 117 are minor and technical changes to improve and clarify the drafting.
	I hope that I have fully explained the reasoning behind the Lords amendments.

John Hayes: As the Under-Secretary said, the second group of amendments contains minor improvements, which we broadly welcome. He made it clear that Lords amendment 67 clarifies the relationship between the YPLA and local authorities, and that is helpful.
	We have consistently argued that sixth-form colleges should be able to convert to a further education corporation after two rather than five years from when a sixth form college corporation is declared. I acknowledge that the Government have now accepted that argument.
	The Government also conceded our point about requiring the YPLA and sixth- form colleges to consult the SFC before appointing someone to the board.
	As the Under-Secretary said, Lords amendment 68 would make it clear that the YPLA had to get approval from the Secretary of State before issuing a direction to a failing authority.
	Nevertheless, the amendments do not address the fundamental problems of the structure that the Bill proposes. The recession should surely have taught us that we need a dynamic and responsive system. Instead, the Bill represents the needless bureaucratisation of the management and funding of FE, skills, and in particular the apprenticeship system.
	The abolition of the LSC, the creation of the three new agencies—the YPLA, the SFA and a National Apprenticeship Service—and the placing of further education under LEA control create a system whereby everyone has a say, but no one takes responsibility. Consequently, and perhaps without appropriate thought or planning, I suspect that the new system will be as bad as the LSC and possibly worse. It is more bureaucratic, has a greater capacity for contradiction, overlapping responsibilities and confused lines of accountability. At the very least, it is a wasted opportunity, given that we are getting rid of the LSC.
	Represented diagrammatically, the system would be a mix of a Jackson Pollock painting and a Heath Robinson drawing. Represented musically, it would be Iron Maiden playing Shostakovich. It is, at best, an extremely muddled and mixed system. At worst, it risks jeopardising the interests of business, learners and the economy as a whole.
	It is extraordinary that to that littered landscape the Government are adding a new, big role for regional development agencies. The many Government amendments we are now considering are an indication of just how complicated, and in my judgement unworkable, the arrangements that the Bill puts in place are likely to be in practice.
	Amendment 180, which is to schedule 3—on the appointment of the chief executive of the YPLA—would enable
	"Later chief executives...to be appointed"
	to
	"the YPLA...on conditions of service determined by the YPLA".
	We have serious concerns about this change, to which the Minister referred. The new conditions in question are set out in paragraphs 5(1) and (2) of schedule 3. In the initial draft of the Bill, the chief executive was to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Following changes resulting from the debate in the other place, now only the first chief executive will be appointed in that way—subsequent appointments will be made by the YPLA itself, but those will be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. I note what the Minister said on those terms.
	That creates what was called in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" a "self-perpetuating autocracy". It is an extraordinary further complication of what is already a complex system. We do not support that development. Reducing the powers of the Secretary of State over appointments to the YPLA has the effect of weakening democratic accountability. It is a further criticism of the structure that is being proposed—indeed, invented—by the Bill that the lines of accountability to this place are increasingly confused. Members will be concerned that amendment 180 reduces their authority over such matters still further.
	The YPLA surely should be accountable to the House via the Secretary of State. That is the least we should expect. Since the Secretary of State should have the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the YPLA, surely it is important that he has sufficient authority over it, which should include something as important as the appointment of the chief executive.
	One of the most damaging consequences of the proliferation of quangos under this Government has been the understandable sense among the public that those with power over their lives are shielded from democratic accountability. Agencies are not answerable to the public. That is why Ministers should retain control over appointments to quangos—so that they can answer for quangos' actions to the public through Parliament. If that does not happen, the link between power and elected accountability is inevitably degraded.
	Quangos should operate at arm's length from the Government and the Minister with responsibility for them only in a defined and limited range of circumstances, which might include politically impartial decision making, transparent determination of facts or work of a specific technical or regulatory nature. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition addressed that in a speech on 6 July and explained how a Conservative Government would approach the management of quangos, which is particularly relevant to the debate on this group of amendments. He said:
	"any delegation of power by a minister to a quango will not mean a corresponding delegation of responsibility...our goal is democratic accountability, not bureaucratic accountability".
	Amendment 180 takes the opposite approach and is not consistent with accountable government of the kind described by him and, actually, of the kind that is dear to the hearts of all good parliamentarians, regardless of party affiliation.
	In the other place, my noble Friend Lord De Mauley put the argument persuasively when he pointed out the different constitutional bases of the YPLA and the SFA. There are real doubts about the different personalities of those two organisations and the resulting difficulties of their relationship. He said that the SFA is an agency under the aegis of the Secretary of State, whereas the YPLA is a non-departmental public body. He went on to say:
	"we express our opposition to"
	the
	"government Amendments"
	which
	"would allow the YPLA the power to appoint its own chief executive, albeit subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. If the YPLA is to exist, it should be held to account in the same way"
	as
	"the SFA as an agency should be held to account. The principle of democratic accountability must hold fast"—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 89.]
	Part of the confusion that is likely to be created by the Bill will result from the different mechanisms by which those bodies are answerable to the House and to Ministers.
	The Government are planning an immensely complicated system and it is not, frankly, widely welcomed in the sector. When I speak to people in the sector, they tell me that they too feel that it is going to be convoluted and may be difficult to navigate. The lines of accountability are not as they should be, as I have described. As a result, the new structure is not regarded as likely to be better than the LSC, which is quite an achievement; suddenly, the LSC has friends! The LSC was rather like the red army— though big, insensitive and expensive, it was at least predictable. The new system is anything but. Actually, it is less like Soviet Russia and more like Byzantium.
	I am surprised, because the Minister is a good Minister, a diligent Member of the this House, a proud member of the Government Front-Bench team, and perhaps Hartlepool Sixth Form college's finest. I am surprised that he can, in all conscience, defend this indefensible cacophony, this awful blurred picture, this Jackson Pollock, Heath Robinson, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Shostakovich structure. Perhaps he thinks it is better than a system that is streamlined, sensitive and responsive to need, and a system that could and would be understood by both learners and employers. I certainly do not.

Stephen Williams: Madam Deputy Speaker, you and everyone else will be relieved that I do not have any musical, theatrical, cinematic, artistic or any other analogies to make in my short remarks.
	I am pleased that the Minister is so delighted by the capital investment in Hartlepool sixth-form college—he may indeed be its finest product—but that delight will not be shared by many of his Labour, let alone Opposition, colleagues, who have seen FE and sixth-form colleges in their constituencies starved of the funds they expected to receive following their capital programme bids over the past 12 months.
	My only concern about this group of amendments is essentially what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) alluded to—how long is the arm's length between the Ministry, the Minister and the quango or non-department public body? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the soon-to-be-lamented Learning and Skills Council. Whenever things are going right in the sector, Ministers are keen to crow and take the credit, but when things go wrong, it is someone else's fault. For instance, when the capital programme went wrong, it was all the fault of the poor chief executive of the LSC, but the same could happen to the chief executive of the QCA or any body.
	I would like the same clarification as the hon. Gentleman. What is the nature of the relationship between the new chief executive of the YPLA, the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? How accountable is that individual and his or her successors to this House, directly through the Minister, or through other parts of the House, such as the Public Accounts Committee? In my first two and a half years as a Member of the House, like the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), I was a member of the Education Committee, to which the head of Ofsted essentially reported. The head of Ofsted could be scrutinised directly by members of that Committee on how it was implementing policy—the Government were genuinely at arm's length. It would be good if the Minister could clarify how he sees the relationships to which I referred developing.

Iain Wright: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). It was a remarkable achievement to mention Jackson Pollock, Iron Maiden, Shostakovich, Black Sabbath and Monty Python in the space of about 30 seconds. I imagine that that feat is unequalled in the history of the House.
	I was pleased with the hon. Gentleman's agreement to the amendments on clarifying the role of the YPLA and local authorities, the governance of sixth-form colleges and other matters. His comments and questions, and those of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), were essentially about the new architecture of the machinery of government and how the YPLA will rightly be accountable to this House.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that the system for funding should be dynamic and responsive. I agree, and that is what we are moving towards. At the moment, colleges have a variety of different funding streams. If they are entrepreneurial, they will be approaching businesses in their area and providing bespoke training courses. The proposed machinery of government changes will provide much greater clarity, and that has been a constant theme throughout the Bill's passage, here and in the other place.
	Local authorities will be in the driving seat, commissioning services from birth until the age of 19. They will be responsible for strategic planning, for commissioning for 16 to 19-year-olds, for sub-regional and regional working, for financial assurance and audit, and for provider performance management. The YPLA will be responsible for providing the framework, development and maintenance; for funding and allocation on a national basis; for direct commissioning and procurement; and for enabling informed commissioning to take place. Local authorities will have a strategic role in their areas, because they know what is important for their local vision in economic and social terms, and they will be in the driving seat. There will be a clear demarcation between provision up to the age of 19 and then post-19, and the Bill will provide important clarity on that point.
	Providers on the ground will see significant benefits in terms of better informed and integrated commissioning of services and through streamlined performance management and data arrangements. For post-19 learners, there will be one account management system, as opposed to the current nine or 10 systems, and an automated settlement system that will pay colleges and providers in line with the choices made by learners and employers. Learners' decisions will drive the system: money will flow from the learner, which will provide the dynamic and responsive system that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that the YPLA should be accountable to the House. It will be. As I said before, I have taken legislation through the House on the appointment of other non-departmental public body chief executives—for example, the Homes and Communities Agency and the Tenants Services Authority—and this provision takes the same approach. NDPBs are accountable to the House—chief executives can be called to the relevant Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee. The YPLA will be required to publish its annual report to the House each year and the Secretary of State will still be accountable in terms of debates and questions. The accountability line is clear and is consistent with other NDPBs.

Iain Wright: Certainly with regard to the YPLA and the national funding framework that will be introduced, we thought that it would be best to have an arm's length role so that Ministers would not be accused of interfering with specific funding allocations. That degree of impartiality is important. As I have said, the YPLA will have a clear line of accountability to the House through the Secretary of State, because its representatives can be called here by Select Committees and because of the annual report requirement—

John Hayes: rose—

Stephen Williams: We have just had the experience of the penultimate chief executive of the LSC resigning in response to the capital programme fiasco. Who will require the chief executive of the YLPA to resign if something goes wrong on his or her watch?

Vernon Coaker: It is a pleasure to contribute, even at this late stage, to what is an important Bill, and on these important amendments. The provisions in this Bill concerning the education and training of young people in juvenile custody are an important step forward. This Bill ends the disapplication of education law to this group of young people, something which has been called for by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, it paves the way for joining up education in juvenile custody with education in the mainstream, by giving commissioning responsibility to local authorities. This is an extremely important area, concerning the education of some of our most vulnerable young people. It is an area that many of my hon. Friends in this House, as well as colleagues in the other place, have expertise in and a passion for. It is right, therefore, that we have listened carefully during debates and amended the Bill where necessary to ensure that it delivers what we want for these young people.
	The most significant change that we have made concerns literacy and numeracy assessments for offenders on their entry into youth custody in a young offender institution, a secure training centre or a secure children's home. These assessments will provide a vital mechanism for informing the learning young people receive in custody, and we are grateful to those in the other place who urged that this existing practice be reflected on the face of the Bill. Similarly, it is important that educational progress made while in custody should inform planning for the young person's resettlement. Amendment 49 places a clear duty on the host local authority to share information about the young person's education with the home authority to inform their education and training on the person's release.
	Amendment 46 is a change to the new power in section 562A of the Education Act 1996 to clarify that the power cannot be used to disapply the other young offender provisions in the Bill. That was always our intention, and again we are happy to make it explicit. Amendment 115 clarifies that the chief executive's duties in respect of persons with learning difficulties extends specifically to people in adult detention, including those aged 18 or below. Amendments 43, 50 to 55, 170 and 174 are minor and technical drafting amendments.
	The amendments deal with a most important part of the Bill. We would all agree that the discussion and debate that has taken place on this section of the Bill are extremely important. The Bill has been immeasurably improved. A consequence of that will be a better educational entitlement for some of the most vulnerable young people in our society.

John Hayes: It is a pleasure to face the Minister across the Dispatch Box for, I think, the first time, although we are old friends from Nottinghamshire days. He always approaches these matters with diligence and insight. I have seen off the first two Ministers to speak in this debate—the first has left the Chamber and the second wishes that he never left Hartlepool. We shall see what the third Minister can do this evening.
	We tabled an amendment to introduce a reading assessment for people when they enter and leave youth detention centres. The Minister is right that those are important matters. Bluntly, this was another important victory for Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers in the Lords who united in their determination to improve the Bill. Once again, that illustrates that the Bill has improved during its passage, as the Minister generously acknowledged. The Government have moved an amendment to include an assessment of literacy and numeracy skills, and that is the amendment that we are debating today. It will be a requirement that the information from the assessment be used to determine whether young people in custody get education or training.
	That is important, of course, because of the link between poor education and recidivism, which is also linked to the inability of young people to gain employment when they leave custody. Lord De Mauley welcomed the Government's
	"intention to expand the requirement that the information from the assessments be used to help determine suitable"
	subsequent provision. He agreed that
	"if a recent assessment is available, then a further assessment should not be required."
	He also argued:
	"it remains important to have an assessment in place for when the person leaves youth accommodation, as well as when he enters it."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 73-74.]
	Lord Ramsbotham, in the other place, said that the assessment should be made available to the home authority, which would facilitate a coherent approach to education, meaning that the progress made while in detention can be carried forward thereafter.
	The Government's own assessment of their progress in respect of the education of people in detention suggests that a lack of consistency and coherence is not only a feature but a problem with much of what is done in attempting to train, educate and skill those in detention. We share that analysis, but we understand the difficulties, particularly in respect of young people who might not be in one place for long. Indeed, they might be moved around, might not be taught by one person for long and might move between courses. Trying to build greater consistency and coherence into the system that we employ to give people, while in detention, the necessary skills to do better later depends on a good analysis of their needs, and these amendments essentially focus on that process.
	A key part of the Bill is to raise standards in youth offender institutions, helping to educate and skill young people in those institutions, so that they have a second chance and an incentive to turn towards a career away from crime and other deviant behaviour. Aspiration is vital in that respect. Ensuring that education matches an assessment is important in feeding aspiration. We are glad that the Government are finally on the same page as us on this matter. It would be less than generous, and certainly less than courteous, to quote Edmund Burke, who said that
	"the concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear".
	I prefer, in this context, to assume that these are the concessions of a sinner who has learned to repent.

Annette Brooke: We, too, welcome the amendments greatly. The proportion of young people in custody with low standards in literacy and numeracy and—often—with speech impediments has long been known, so it makes sense finally to address the situation. I note the Minister's reference to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, the 20th anniversary of which is coming up. It might have taken us a long time to get to this point, but I sincerely hope that we can now move rapidly on what should be enormously important changes.
	There are two aspects to the assessments. We will be identifying young people who might have just missed schooling and others with specific educational needs, and both processes need a proper plan and checks on progress. We are all concerned about the enormously high rate of reoffending. I said in Committee that we have the right divide between the home authority and the host authority, but it is important to ensure that we have information sharing and full responsibility in respect of both authorities. The amendment passed on Third Reading will make a big contribution to that.
	I note the firm commitments given by the Minister on Third Reading that the services of the Communication Trust will be brought into play. That is really important and is welcomed. In particular, it must be recognised that many of the young people will have some form of dyslexia, so the employment of specialist teachers was an important move forward.
	We support the amendments, want to see action taken and sincerely hope that a big contribution is made to the lives of some vulnerable young people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Lords amendments 57 to 64.
	Lords amendments 175 and 176.

John Hayes: I am grateful that the Minister has conceded that the Bill has been improved in this area too by consideration in Committee and in the other place.
	Lords amendment 56 inserts a new clause, entitled "Provision of transport etc for persons of sixth form age: duty to have regard to section 15ZA duty", which says:
	"In section 509AB(3) of the Education Act 1996 (provision of transport etc for persons of sixth form age in England: matters to which LEAs must have regard)...insert...what they are required to do under section 15ZA(1) in relation to persons of sixth form age".
	In other words, the Bill places a new duty on local education authorities to set out in a transport policy statement the arrangements that they will make for those learners aged 19 to 24 inclusive who may have a learning difficulty. The amendments will allow the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to cover not only the new transport policy statement for learners aged 19 to 24 with learning difficulties and disabilities, which is introduced in proposed new section 508G of the 1996 Act, but the wider adult transport duty to which the Minister referred.
	The amendments are also intended to make a link between the local authority commissioning duty outlined in the Bill and the sixth-form and adult transport duties, so that local authorities do not consider their transport arrangements—particularly their arrangements for those aged 19 to 24 with learning difficulties and disabilities—in isolation from their new responsibilities for commissioning education and training provision. In essence, this is about linking transport to the rest of the provision, and that is critically important. When the Bill was first discussed in Committee here, we felt that that link had not been sufficiently well made, and we argued—here and in the Lords—that the Bill needed strengthening in that regard. We are happy that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments to ensure that students with disabilities have the same rights of complaint about transport issues as 16 to 18-year-olds. That is a practical and sensible change to the Bill. It is not a matter for partisan debate or a matter of contention, so I shall not detain the House any longer.

Stephen Williams: I have a couple of questions about the operation of the provisions in Lords amendment 64, which will give the young adult learners that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has just mentioned—as well as their parents and, presumably, carers—the right to complain. Will the Minister explain in what circumstances he or his successor would seek to intervene to direct a local authority to amend its transport provision? As I understand it, the amendment does not mention a mechanism by which the learner, or their parent or carer, can appeal if the local authority does not respond in a positive way to their concerns. How does the Minister envisage the amendment working in practice, if it is accepted?

Iain Wright: With the leave of the House, may I say that I am pleased with the tone of the responses from the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams)? The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings rightly said that he wanted to see the linking of transport with other provision, and we absolutely agree with him. That was always the intention, as I think he knows, but we just needed to make it explicit in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Bristol, West made an important point about complaints. We want to become more responsive to local complaints, in relation not only to transport duty but to a whole range of other local authority activities, in order to ensure that local authorities improve the services that they offer to the people they serve. We think that that is best achieved by going through a local process before going to the Secretary of State.
	Clause 54 creates a new power for local authorities to amend their transport policy statements in-year, in response to complaints or direction by the Secretary of State, and to publish updated statements and a description of the change. However, we shall require complaints to go through a local complaints process first, before they can be considered further. During the passage of the Bill, we were lobbied by the Association of Colleges and by Skill, and we think that the amendments will help to address their concerns. The key point is to ensure that local authorities are accountable to the people they represent, and we believe that it is important for these complaints to go through a local process, so that the authority has an opportunity to respond to them and to react to any concerns. If the person concerned—either the person with learning difficulties or disabilities, or the person charged with their care—is not satisfied, however, the escalation process, which should be a common feature of all complaints procedures, will give them recourse to the Secretary of State. To give the hon. Member for Bristol, West a direct answer to his question, we do not want to dictate the point at which any escalation takes place; we want to give people the opportunity to resolve any problems locally, as that is the best way to ensure that services are better locally on the ground.

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman has raised two important points. I can certainly make a commitment that the Secretary of State will issue guidance on the complaints procedure and on the escalation of complaints to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman also made an incredibly important point about different locations having different needs and transport requirements. The most obvious difference is that between rural and urban communities.
	With regard to the new 14-to-19 offer—including people with learning difficulties and disabilities—and particularly with regard to diplomas, which are sometimes not taught in a single place and might involve students going to different places and work-based providers, the collaborative approach that we are trying to achieve must be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me: local authorities are the best placed to ensure that their local circumstances are best served by their own strategic proposals and operational arrangements. In that way, local authorities in rural areas will know what the concerns are, and will be the best placed to deal with them locally on the ground. I hope that I have addressed the concerns that hon. Members have raised, and on that basis, I hope that they will support these important amendments.
	 Lords amendment 56 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 57 to 71 agreed to.

Vernon Coaker: Although we are all in agreement that it is not sustainable for a Government Department to continue to support and fund an increasing number of academies, there has been some concern about placing this duty within the Young People's Learning Agency, which will carry out academies functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. We have heard what the House has said, and we have also been talking to sponsors. We will continue to consult sponsors and principals, as well as the Independent Academies Association, on the proposed arrangements through the academies reference group that will look at how this new way of working can be developed.
	Asking the YPLA to exercise academy functions has benefits. The regional network of YPLA offices will allow much better awareness of the local context that the academy is working in. Also, it will guard against the fragmented system that could result if one of the key providers—academies—were working elsewhere, other than within the YPLA framework. Once the YPLA is up and running, we will issue a remit letter every year, after consultation with sponsors, principals and other interested parties, which will enable the YPLA to develop the way in which it works with academies. We have also tabled two amendments that will build in the safeguards that I hope will reassure hon. Members that the YPLA is the most appropriate organisation to carry out academies functions.
	Government amendment 178 makes it clear that the Secretary of State will have a duty to ensure that the YPLA board reflects the sectors and young people it serves. It would not be appropriate for any one sector to dominate the board, as is being proposed by amendment (a). That includes local authorities as well as academies. However, we will ensure that members of the board will have direct experience of academies. There is already significant academy representation on the Learning and Skills Council committee that is working to establish the YPLA, and our amendment should send a clear signal of our intention to ensure that academy interests continue to be well represented. In addition, the recruitment of a director of academies, reporting to the chief executive of the YPLA, will further strengthen academy representation.
	Government amendments 72 and 73 will prevent the YPLA from entering into a funding agreement to create an academy and from making subordinate legislation. Lords amendment 72 will also ensure that there is a procedure in place for academies, or others, to make a complaint to the Secretary of State if they are affected by the conduct of the YPLA.

Nick Gibb: During the Bill's time in the other place, a number of amendments were tabled, as the Minister has explained, to the clauses relating to the YPLA, but none of them has answered our fundamental concern about its suitability to carry out academy arrangements—that is, for the YPLA to be used as the oversight body for academies. This is very important. The Government have amended clause 75 to make it clear that the academy functions being transferred to the YPLA do not include the body's ability to take the Secretary of State's place in signing a funding agreement with an academy or its ability to make or confirm subordinate legislation. That clarification is certainly welcome, but it does not address the central issue of the YPLA's suitability for this role; nor does it deal substantively with the very serious concerns of academy providers.
	There is now a growing consensus that the Secretary of State does not understand or believe in the importance of academy autonomy. He professes to support academies when it is politically convenient to do so, but the policy detail belies those expressions of support. When he was an adviser at the Treasury, he used his influence to undermine reforms in the public services that promoted autonomy or choice, both in health and education. Since his appointment as Secretary of State, a clear trend in policy has become apparent. He has required more involvement by local authorities in the sponsorship, establishment and operation of academies. He has reduced their freedoms over the curriculum; their autonomy has been steadily eroded.
	It is this very autonomy that is the crucial decisive principle behind the success of these schools and it is the reason why they are improving faster than other types of school, giving pupils from some of this country's most deprived areas an outstanding and rigorous education. This year, for example, 85 per cent. of the pupils at Mossbourne academy in Hackney—one of the most deprived parts of London, with half its pupils qualifying for free school meals and with 40 per cent. having English as a second language—gained five or more GSCEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. Last week, Ofsted reported that the Harris city academy at Crystal Palace in south London was the first to receive a perfect Ofsted report under the new reporting regime. Before the school was taken over by Lord Harris in 1991, it managed to get just 10 per cent. of its pupils achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. As Lord Harris said:
	"When we took over this school no one wanted to come here. Yet in our first five years, we increased the number of GCSE pupils getting A to C grades from 10 per cent. to 54 per cent. Since then, we've gone on improving and that figure is now 99 per cent."
	The school receives 2,000 applications for 180 places each year. That is what academies can achieve, yet it is an approach that appears not to have gained the genuine support of this current Administration.
	Academies do not need to wait for authorisation before attempting an innovation. They are free to focus on their core work—the education of pupils—without being distracted by a welter of Government advice and guidance. They place teachers firmly in control of the school, and the freedoms, the ethos of transformation and the high aspirations they create are the reasons for academies' success. That is why it is so important that those freedoms are not undermined.
	The frustration and anxiety of academy providers over the Government's direction of travel was accurately summarised in a letter to the then Minister on 23 February from Mike Butler, chairman of the Independent Academies Association. He wrote:
	"It appears that with every consultation, each missive and even new legislation from the DSCF there comes further erosion of the independent status of academies."

Nick Gibb: Our advice goes way beyond local authorities; it goes to livery companies, parent groups, co-operative teachers, educational foundations and Church groups that want to set up a school. If there is a Conservative Government after the next election, we will make it much easier for any of those groups to set up schools in any area they choose—regardless of the attitude of the local authority.

Vernon Coaker: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's commitment to academies, or his commitment to them if he were fortunate enough to take my position. My question, however, was about his advice—precisely what he is saying—to Conservative local authorities up and down the country regarding the Government's academy programme. Is his advice and message to them that they should co-operate with the Government in order to establish academies in their areas? In one or two cases, I am not sure that that is totally clear. It would be very helpful to me if he would make his position clear—that his advice to Conservative authorities across the country is to work with the Government to establish the academies—because whatever they think, that is the best solution for them.

Nick Gibb: I am quite sure that all local authorities in this country, whether they be Conservative authorities or not, work closely with the Government, but the thrust of Conservative policy on this issue is very clear to all local authorities. It is that the impetus for creating a new academy will come from those groups that I have identified. That is where the impetus will come from, and a Conservative Government will make it much easier for those groups to establish academies, particularly in the areas of greatest need.
	Whenever I have had discussions with academy providers, the same issue has arisen again and again, as the autonomy of the academies programme is being undermined. There is a strong sense that although the Secretary of State may pay lip service to the movement and has a Minister of State who is clearly passionate about academies, the Secretary of State himself does not fully embrace the principle that professional freedom brings higher standards and better schools.
	The Bill unquestionably continues that trend by transferring academy arrangements to the YPLA. The Minister is going to give a quango, whose primary responsibility is the funding of 16-to-19 education, a position of authority over academies. We have consistently argued that this is inappropriate because it will transfer management of these schools to a body whose primary responsibility lies in a largely unrelated area. As my noble Friend Baroness Verma said in the other place:
	"A body that ties academies into local authorities and which deals specifically with education for people between 16 and 19 is not appropriate. First, academies thrive on their independence and freedom from local authorities. Secondly, the age range of academies is most commonly 11 to 18, and some even have primary schools attached."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 53.]
	Why should we assume that an organisation designed to provide funding for 16-to-19 education will be an effective supervisor of academies that educate children from the age of 11 or even three? The issues at stake and the expertise required will be very different. The autonomy of academies is essential to their success, which means that any oversight function needs to be arranged so that this principle is not threatened. Why, therefore, has this function been given to a body that has not been specifically designed to discharge it?
	There is a very real danger that the YPLA will interfere in the work of academies, particularly if members and component local authorities are ideologically opposed to the academies movement. In my experience, that tends to be Labour, not Conservative, local authorities, as intimated by the Minister. That is why we and many academy providers have consistently argued that the YPLA should not be able to enter into academy arrangements. Dr. Daniel Moynihan of the Harris Federation said in evidence to the Bill Committee in March:
	"We want to be fully accountable and fully in the daylight for our performance, and for that we need to be responsible for decisions about services and how they are used, and not have them forced on us." ——[ Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 46, Q117.]
	In response to a question about moving academies back to local authority control, Dr. Moynihan said:
	"My answer would be that local authorities have called in academy sponsors because the various mechanisms that they have deployed in the past to improve the schools that they offer us as academies have not worked... It does not make sense to return those schools to local authorities." ——[ Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 48, Q126.]
	Dr. Moynihan's major concern relates to the attitude that the YPLA would take to academies establishing sixth forms, and whether it would try to prevent them from doing so because of the competition that that might create with established sixth forms. As he said:
	"In one local authority, we were told... that we could not open sixth forms in two of our academies. It was a particularly poor part of London in terms of the staying-on rate, and the reason why we were told that was that it did not fit with the plan. Four years later we have 400 sixth-formers and an outstanding sixth form, but nothing else has changed in the area. As in that case, we would want to be sure that we had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and that it was clear that we could not necessarily be blocked by whatever the local plan was if it was not an entirely sensible and objective one.
	We have experienced difficulties on other occasions when local authorities have not wanted an academy to open for political reasons and in order to protect underperforming local provision." ——[ Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 44, Q108.]
	The response from the Minister in another place, Lady Morgan, was sympathetically expressed but ultimately unhelpful.

Vernon Coaker: I know the hon. Gentleman will agree that Dr. Moynihan is a fantastic advocate of academies and has done a tremendous job. Let me, however, quote from the same session from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. Dr. Moynihan said:
	"we support the establishment of the agency. It makes sense for the Department to have an agency to take care of academies. Clearly the Department was never meant to be a local authority, so we are perfectly happy with that and we think it will work well." ——[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 43, Q107.]

David Laws: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether that latter aspiration is the policy of the Conservative party—which, essentially, would mean displacing the existing YPLA with something purely academies-based—or whether he envisages the powers returning to the Department, as has been the case?

Nick Gibb: When we debated the issue in Committee, I tabled an amendment to enable a different organisation to be established to run the academies. The question is whether the academies should be run from within the Department or whether they should be overseen by a stand-alone non-departmental public body. There are arguments on both sides. We are considering them, and the hon. Gentleman will be the first to know what we decide.
	In another place, Lady Morgan said:
	"we cannot accept a situation where academy sixth forms are funded automatically".
	She went on to say:
	"However, academies often are the best providers. Those academies have nothing to fear. Local authorities cannot and will not just ignore that. If local authorities acted unreasonably in their commissioning role—refusing to fund high-quality provision may well count as unreasonable—they could face judicial review".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 58.]
	Administration by judicial review is the not the way to proceed. The very real concerns expressed by Dr. Moynihan, which are shared by the rest of the academies movement, have not been properly addressed by Ministers. Indeed, none of the changes made in the other place that we are debating today have expressed those concerns in any substantive way. That is why we tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 124 which would insert a requirement that a majority of ordinary members of the YPLA must be currently serving principals of an academy, thus ensuring that the YPLA will take into account the needs of academies and will have an understanding of the approach that makes the movement so successful. The minority members will be able to deal with the other duties and responsibilities of the YPLA—

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for correcting any ambiguity so swiftly. We are reassured by his comments.
	Let me turn to the most important part of the debate, and deal with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 178. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) is always extremely candid in this place—perhaps more candid than is always good for politicians—and he responded with typical candour when I asked whether this was Conservative party policy by acknowledging that it might or might not be.

David Laws: It was indeed another ambiguity. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was making a point rather than a serious proposal, although his response a moment ago suggests that there may be a serious proposal behind it.
	I understand that the previous position of the Conservative party was that it wanted academies to continue to be under the oversight of Westminster and the Minister. We do not believe that that is sustainable. It might have been sustainable with one Minister who was very engaged in the programme when the Government were running 20 or 30 academies, but it is surely not sustainable when there are 100, 200, 300 or 400, and it certainly will not be sustainable if the vision for the education system set out by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) in his speech on 5 November comes to fruition. He made it very clear that the Conservative party's long-term goal was for academy status to become the norm not just for secondary schools but—I assume from the thrust of his comments—for primary schools as well.
	If the Conservative party, or Members of Parliament in general, really think that the Department would be capable of holding to account 3,500 secondary schools and 23,500 primary and secondary schools from Westminster, it and we will be making a grave mistake. I do not see how that could possibly be consistent with many of the criticisms made by the Conservative party of big government and the system of running everything from Westminster and Whitehall. I would also say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if he is concerned with political interference in the academies movement, there could not be a better guarantee of uncertainty in that regard than putting the Secretary of State and the Department in charge of the oversight of academies. That is because whenever there is a Minister or Secretary of State who is unenthusiastic about academies, they might easily and rapidly implement changes to undermine the academy movement. Therefore, those who support academies might want some elements of their oversight or freedoms to be at a greater distance from Secretaries of State. I would have thought that this might be a concern that the hon. Gentleman would have in respect of the current Government. It does not appear to me to be at all obvious that we should stick with the existing system, and it appears fairly obvious that we should move towards a different approach.
	The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting this in amendment (a). I assume the amendment is not a serious proposal, but that it has been tabled to make a point. If implemented, however, it would either make the YPLA entirely responsible for the oversight of academies or lead to the appointment of so many principals to it that the YPLA would become obsessed by academies and would pay little regard to many of its other responsibilities. It would therefore effectively end up being a regulator of academies.
	Because we do not think that that is a satisfactory approach, my party has not been able to support the Government or the Conservative party on this matter. Such an approach could leave some parts of the country with regional branches of the YPLA that have oversight of a tiny number of academies and that would duplicate the oversight that is already supposed to be in place from local authorities. From my understanding of what happened in Committee, it would also leave us with a deeply unsatisfactory situation in which the Government essentially set up a YPLA to take on the oversight of academies because they do not trust local authorities with the oversight and performance management of schools, and particularly of those schools with high levels of disadvantage and poor levels of overall performance. It seems to me pretty astonishing that the Government might put in place a system of oversight for these schools that suggests that they have no confidence in the other mechanisms that are used for the oversight of the vast majority of schools in this country.
	If there are problems with local authority oversight of either academies or existing schools, it seems more appropriate to deal with and address the deficiencies in that oversight than to seek to set up a separate organisation such as the YPLA to do the job or perhaps to end up—this could be Conservative party policy, depending on which branch line it takes in its current review—with the oversight of 23,500 schools from one ministerial office in Westminster.
	Many of the concerns about academy oversight and independence—which I think are shared by all three Front-Bench teams—could be met by addressing three separate issues. First, the freedoms of academies need to be protected, and could be effectively protected by legislation. Secondly, there should be support for the establishment of academies where it may not be sufficient to rely on local authorities providing that support if they feel those schools are competing with the existing local authority family of schools. Authority for that could rest with either the Department or a much smaller agency of the type that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton suggested. In our view, that ought to leave the oversight of academies and all other state-funded schools with local authorities, and they themselves should be under very rigorous oversight from an independent educational standards authority of a type that, frankly, we do not have at the moment. That lets down not only those schools that could come under the oversight of local government, but the thousands of other schools that have to rely on a performance management mechanism, which the Government seem to feel is so defective that they are having to set up a separate body to do this for the academies.
	We therefore believe that amendments 178, 72 and 73 offer some welcome tweaks from another place, but we believe that the fundamental issue of the oversight of academies has not been dealt with. We certainly do not believe that the right way to go forward is through amendment (a), which seems more of a probing amendment than a serious proposal.

Vernon Coaker: Our brief discussion on this group of amendments has been useful and interesting. Let me repeat and put on record that academies are an essential part of the Government's educational reform programme. They play a significant role in the improvement of educational standards in many of the poorest areas of our country and they have been, in most part, very successful. The fact that we now have 200 academies across the country with a commitment to extending that to 400 academies by 2011 is an extremely important statement of what the Government are seeking to achieve.
	I regularly meet academies and speak to the sponsors. I, along with the Secretary of State and other members of the DCSF ministerial team, do all we can to expand and develop the programme. I referred the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) to the argument about the need for academies to be developed more quickly as though they are the answer in every situation, because one or two Conservative authorities across the country—or perhaps more—are not following the policy that he has just articulated. If it is, indeed, Conservative party policy that every school should be an academy and that they should be the answer to educational deprivation and underachievement all across the country, he needs to speak to one or two local authorities and tell them that. I have to tell him that in one or two cases where we are seeking to provide an academy solution to a problem, it is not Labour authorities, the DCSF or me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who are preventing that from happening; it is one or two people from his own party.

Vernon Coaker: The point I am making is that we want to academies to be the solution where that is appropriate, and we need to overcome any obstacles to that. The only point I am making to the hon. Gentleman is that it is not just Labour authorities that are sometimes standing in the way of the academy solution. The Secretary of State has been very clear that academies are an important solution to the problems of educational underachievement. They are an important solution to some of problems we have seen when social deprivation and educational achievement remain linked despite the efforts that have been made, but they are not the only solution. That is the difference between us. The Conservatives see academies as a solution in every single situation—in every single secondary school and every single primary school—whereas we say that there may well be other solutions, including the national challenge trust. Locally, an academy might not be the best means of improving educational standards in an area, but we will pursue an academy solution if we believe that it is appropriate.
	The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) mentioned local authorities. We might go to the local authority and ask it to come to agreements about educational transformation in its area and develop a strategy for change, perhaps using Building Schools for the Future money. It is up to the local authority to determine how to do that. The difference between us and the other parties is that we want local authorities to come forward and tell us what the solution is—and that may well be an academy, or it may well be a national challenge trust or another sort of federation. We will not tolerate, however, local authorities who will not come forward to grasp difficult issues, but we will work closely with local authorities on the school reform programme.
	We have introduced the YPLA simply because, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, it simply is not sustainable for the Department to run academies from the centre and to become, in essence, a national local authority for hundreds and hundreds of them. If there were only a few academies, such an arrangement might be appropriate, but as we expect to have 400 of them in a couple of years' time, it simply is not in this case. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said:
	"There is a general consensus that the administration and oversight of academies should, because of the growing number of academies, be performed by some form of agency acting for the Secretary of State". ——[ Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 19 March 2009; c. 427.]
	He may not accept the YPLA, but he accepts that some form of agency, aside from the central DCSF, would be the appropriate body and that suggests that he accepts the need for another body to help run the academy programme, rather than to have the whole programme run centrally.

Vernon Coaker: Performance management, ultimately, will be done by Ofsted; it will draw problems to the attention of local authorities, Ministers or the sponsors. Indeed, some academies welcome Ofsted and conduct Ofsted-type inspections of themselves to see how they are performing, and how their improvement programmes and strategies are working.
	We have said that the YPLA will provide better value for money and that a dedicated agency would help to save nearly £1 million. The existing regional infrastructure will allow quicker, more focused support resulting from better knowledge of the local context and more regular contact. Academy funding functions fit in with the YPLA's main remit: the funding of education and training places for 16 to 19-year-olds. We are working and will continue to work with academies to make sure that they are supported in ways that work best for them.
	We have built in safeguards. The Secretary of State will remain legally responsible for all the academies' functions, including negotiating and signing the funding agreements, as I have said. The Secretary of State will be directly involved in key decisions, such as terminating a funding agreement or appointing new members to the governing body. Academies will have the same legal remedies available to them as now if they are unhappy with how they are treated. There will not be a loss of academy autonomy. The YPLA will not have the power to impose new duties on academies and it will be required to exercise its academy functions in accordance with arrangements and guidance set out by the Secretary of State's key principles.
	I do not see that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is appropriate or necessary. We have said that the YPLA board should represent all the responsibilities that the YPLA has, so we would expect significant—not "majority", as his amendment proposes—academy representation. Also on that body would be sixth-form colleges, local authorities and further education colleges. We have set up an academy reference group, and we regularly meet academies and academy hosts. We have a director of academies who will now work within the YPLA, so we are trying to address what the amendment is getting at: the need to ensure that the YPLA, important as its work will be, does not have an adverse impact on the autonomy of academies, does not slow down the real progress that academies are making in tackling educational underachievement and does what we want.
	In opposing the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but in supporting the Lords in their amendments, may I say that academies are and will remain a fundamental part of our educational reform programme? We believe that their autonomy within a collaborative framework is important, and that importance is shown, as he pointed out, by the excellent results being achieved in many of those academies in areas where that excellence simply did not exist before—all of us, whatever the type of school we wish to see introduced, want to see that. This evening's debate, as well as the one that has taken place alongside this Bill, will help all of us to bring about the educational transformation that we all wish to see.
	 Lords amendment 72 agreed to.
	 Lords  amendments 73 to 117 agreed to, with Commons privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 87, 91 and 105.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments 119 to 123.
	Lords amendment 124, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments125 to 133.
	Lords amendment 159.
	Lords amendment 162.
	Lords amendment 164.
	Lords amendments 187 to 198.

Iain Wright: The establishment of an independent regulator for qualifications and assessments is an important part of this Bill, and I think that there is a strong and welcome consensus behind the establishment of Ofqual. We are all sick and tired of clichéd, lazy and untrue accusations of the dumbing down of standards in exams. By making Ofqual truly independent from the Executive—it will report directly to Parliament, not Ministers—this reform provides the opportunity to ensure that qualifications standards are maintained, and that the public can have well-founded confidence in those standards.
	A large number of amendments have been tabled in response to concerns raised in this House and in the other place regarding Ofqual. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to group my speech around four main themes: the governance of Ofqual; the powers that the regulator has and, within that, the crucial relationship between Ofqual and the Secretary of State; Ofqual's reporting requirements; and minor and technical amendments.
	It is, of course, of paramount importance that Ofqual is, and is clearly seen to be, independent, and its governance arrangements are crucial to establishing that independence. We listened carefully to concerns raised in both Houses and were grateful for the support for the amendments that we tabled in another place. Lords amendments 188, 192 and 193 amend schedule 9, so that the power to appoint and dismiss Ofqual's deputy chair lies with Ofqual, rather than the Secretary of State. We agreed that there should be a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the chief regulator before appointing or dismissing members of Ofqual, and Lords amendments 190 and 194 allow that to happen. The provisions also allow for circumstances in which it is not practicable to consult the chief regulator or their deputy. The Secretary of State can appoint or dismiss before consulting only in exceptional circumstances—where it is considered necessary to do so.
	Under clause 126(6) the Secretary of State can require Ofqual to have regard to specified aspects of Government policy. It is important to stress that Ministers cannot use that power to force Ofqual to do anything; it is only a requirement for Ofqual to "have regard", but the regulator must at least consider the policy in question. Again, we listened to the concerns of those in another place and we tabled an amendment—Lords amendment 118—requiring the Secretary of State to publish any such direction given to Ofqual, in the name of transparency. These amendments all help to reinforce Ofqual's independence of governance, and ensure the transparency of its relationships with Government.
	We need a regulator that can protect standards and ensure that qualifications provide value for money. It is therefore important that Ofqual has the ability to cap fees and to withdraw recognition, for example. Those powers are absolutely essential if Ofqual is to be the robust and effective regulator to which we are all committed to having. They enable it to deliver its efficiency and standards objectives. However, we have recognised and appreciated concerns about the extent of the powers and whether there is sufficient accountability over their use, and we have tabled amendments to increase the safeguards around their use.
	I turn to amendments 119 to 121, and in particular the capping of fees charged by an awarding body for a qualification. The amendments do two things. First, Ofqual may now impose a fee-capping condition only if it is necessary to do so to ensure value for money. Secondly, any reviews of fee-capping decisions must now be the responsibility of someone independent of Ofqual with relevant skills. In the interests of transparency, we have also placed a new duty on the Secretary of State through amendment 121 to publish any fee-capping guidance given to Ofqual, paralleling the requirement to publish any directions on Government policy that I mentioned earlier. We are similarly proposing to amend clause 146 through Lords amendment 127, so that any reviews of a decision to withdraw recognition must be carried out by someone independent of Ofqual.
	The power of the Secretary of State to determine the minimum requirements of qualifications is important: it reflects the fact that Ministers—not Ofqual—are accountable for the curriculum, even though the curriculum is often, in part, specified through Ofqual's qualifications criteria. Ministers have a perfectly legitimate interest in the content of qualifications and are accountable to Parliament in doing so.
	In the light of concerns expressed here and in another place that the power might appear to damage the independence of Ofqual, and the perception of that independence, we have proposed amendments to introduce extra safeguards for its use. Clause 138, which hon. Members will recall with affection, is therefore replaced with four new clauses. It remains the case that minimum requirements can relate only to the minimum knowledge, skills or understanding required to pass the qualification, but these amendments introduce two further requirements.
	First, amendment 122 states that minimum requirements must relate to a qualification that will be or will probably be used by young people studying in publicly funded institutions. Secondly, it would have to be necessary to specify minimum requirements to ensure that the curriculum is appropriate for those of an age likely to be taking the qualification. The House will therefore recognise that that narrows the types of qualifications that are potentially in scope. There is now only one reason why the Secretary of State could intervene: if there is a gap in the curriculum that Ofqual needs to fill through its qualifications criteria.
	In addition, we have two new process hurdles to jump before specifying minimum requirements. Amendment 123 inserts a new clause that states that the Secretary of State will have to consult, including consulting Ofqual, and to publish a document explaining his thinking. Amendments 159, 162 and 164 insert clauses on the minimum requirements, which must be set out in an order subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses.
	Finally, we have created one further and absolutely fundamental safeguard. Amendment 124 inserts a new clause to the effect that Ofqual would not be bound to implement the minimum requirements if doing so would mean that the level of attainment indicated by the qualification would not be consistent with that of comparable qualifications. In effect, that provides a standards veto for Ofqual.
	That leads me to the Opposition's disagreeing with amendment 124 and their amendment (a) thereto. Amendment (a) would water down the standards veto by allowing Ministers to alter the standards of qualifications through specifying minimum requirements. The Government disagree strongly with that proposal for three reasons. First, it would undermine the fundamental principle, on which I believe there was strong consensus, that Ofqual should be directly accountable to Parliament for maintaining qualifications standards. If Ministers could meddle in such a way, Ofqual's independence—and certainly its credibility—would be shot.
	Secondly, the Opposition's proposal implies that changing the qualifications standard from year to year is somehow acceptable. It is not. That could mean that last year's students would have an easier ride than this year's. It could mean that employers or universities comparing students with qualifications from different years, or qualifications in different subjects, would not know who was the strongest. Qualifications rely on understanding and transparency and that change would bring confusion and therefore unfairness to students.
	Let me use an analogy from the world of athletics. We all want to be Usain Bolt—from listening to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), one would think that he wants to be Ozzy Osbourne, Jackson Pollock or perhaps John Cleese, but let us talk about athletics—and let us suppose that we were measuring performance over 100 metres. Ministers could decide that they wanted to encourage students to run faster, and could put in place policy initiatives to help that objective happen—things such as better facilities, more nutritious food or improved equipment. Alternatively, Ministers could decide that they wanted to measure performance over 200 metres instead, but should they be able to force the regulator to redefine a metre as 105 centimetres? I do not think so, but that is what the Opposition's proposal seeks to allow.
	Thirdly, the change is unnecessary. If a particular qualification had fallen out of line with other qualifications—as we saw with GCSE science earlier this year—it would be a regulatory responsibility to bring it back into line, which is what Ofqual is now doing with science. Ministers would not need to intervene. If Ministers decided they wanted different minimum content in a qualification, they could require that. The provision on minimum requirements establishes clearly in the Bill that it is Ministers who determine that aspect of content, and once Ministers have determined minimum content, it is for Ofqual to make sure that the qualification is assessed or graded in a way that maintains the standard.
	Technology or the needs of society and the economy might change the curriculum, and the qualifications that assess that curriculum would need to change in a way that could impact on the standard. It would need to be down to Ofqual, as the guardian of the standard, to make sure that change could be made fairly and transparently, while respecting the interests of learners. It should not be something that Ministers could force through. The proposal would undercut the principles of Ofqual's independence. With the greatest of respect to those on the Opposition Front Bench, the proposal is poorly thought through and I urge the House to reject it.
	We agreed in Committee that we would ask Ofqual to review the allocation of values to qualifications for the purposes of measuring performance in achievement and attainment tables. Following debate in another place, we concluded that we should go further and introduced amendment 128, which places a duty on Ofqual to review any system for allocating values to qualifications for such purposes.
	Let me turn to Ofqual's reporting requirements. We have also made clear through amendments some specific aspects of the activities that Ofqual must include in its annual report. Amendment 130 modifies clause 164 to ensure that Ofqual must provide an assessment of the extent to which it has met its objectives. Secondly, it must provide details of information it has obtained on levels of attainment in school qualifications. Ofqual will also have to explain how it has taken this information into account when assessing how far it has met its qualification standards objectives.
	Finally, we tabled four amendments in Committee to address a technical drafting problem with the paragraphs in schedule 12, amending the supplementary provisions that specify the arrangements for statutory assessments.
	In summary, the amendments improve further the provisions establishing Ofqual in terms of its governance, its independence from the Secretary of State and its reporting to this House and to the other place. I urge the House to agree to Lords amendment 118 and to dismiss the Opposition's amendment if it is pressed to a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must dispose of the other amendments first.
	 Lords amendment 118 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 119 to 123 agreed to , with Commons privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 119.
	Before Clause 138
	 A mendment (a)  proposed  to Lords amendment 124 .—(Mr. Gibb.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— (Mr. Watts.)

Philip Hollobone: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker for giving me permission to hold this debate, which is on the difficulty that local authorities face in adopting roads in new residential developments. That is a very big issue for my constituency, but in researching the subject on behalf of my constituents, I have discovered that it is a big issue across the country. That is why I want to draw it to the Minister's attention.
	The Government define an adopted road as a road maintainable at public expense, but the problem is that, in taking over roads into which taxpayers' money quite rightly is to be put, local authorities find it very difficult to get building developers to get the roads up to the requisite standard before the local authorities take the roads into public ownership.
	This is not a party political issue; it is an issue of major concern not only to my constituents but to constituents around the country who live on new residential estates. The Government are keen to see many more residential estates being built around the country, not least in the growth areas coming out of London, including the one in which the Kettering constituency is located. Kettering's housing numbers are due to increase from 36,000 at present to 49,100 by 2021—an increase of one third—so many thousands of my constituents are or will be living on new residential estates, and will therefore be affected by what I think is a loophole in the legislation—the Highways Act 1980.
	That loophole means, in effect, that there will be hundreds of thousands of residents across the country living on new housing estates whose houses will be located on roads that will have substandard pavements, highways and lighting for many years to come. The mechanism in the Highways Act for roads to be improved to a suitable standard on new residential estates is section 38. Developers are encouraged to enter into a section 38 agreement with the appropriate highways authority which, for constituencies such as mine in the shires, would be the local county council.
	However, there does not seem to be any legal requirement for the developers to enter into such a section 38 agreement to have the roads adopted. Even if they do enter into a section 38 agreement with the local authority, local authorities are not able, without the developer's consent, to access the bonded funds that the developers lodge with the local county council. So unless a developer goes bust, there is very little the local highways authority can do to pressurise the developer into improving the standard of the roads.
	The other surprising thing I found out in my research for this debate is that the Department for Transport does not know the extent of the problem. In a parliamentary answer to me on 22 October the Minister stated:
	"The Department for Transport has no information on the adoption of streets in new developments by local highway authorities and has made no estimate of the time authorities take to do so."—[ Official Report, 22 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 1570W.]
	The most recent note from the House of Commons Library on the subject says:
	"A Department of Transport survey in 1972 found that there were then approximately 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales, making up some 4,000 miles of road. No later survey has been undertaken but the figure is thought not to have changed much. It was estimated in 2006 that it would cost £3 billion to make these roads up to an adoptable standard."
	If nothing else comes from the debate tonight, I very much hope that the Department for Transport will at least try to ascertain the real extent of the problem, which surely must get worse as more houses are built throughout the country.
	I see that some Labour Members are present to listen to the debate. If at any point they wish to highlight local examples of the difficulties that they have had with unadopted roads, I shall be delighted to take interventions.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that extremely pertinent point. Under the legislation, the frontagers on these roads can be held liable for the costs of bringing the roads, pavements and street lighting up to an adoptable standard. They should be advised of those obligations by their solicitor when they undertake their house purchase, but I am not convinced that that always happens. I hope that the Minister will take that point away and discuss it with his relevant colleague in, I guess, the Department for Communities and Local Government, or perhaps the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, because it is important that potential homeowners are advised of their potential liability in this respect. Although the point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a matter of concern in Kettering, the vast majority of my constituents who are affected by this issue live on new estates where the developer is supposed to take responsibility for getting the roads, pavements and street lights up to an adoptable standard but is not doing so.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) made an extremely good point about borough council refuse services. Borough and district councils will become involved in that issue through their responsibilities as planning authorities in granting planning permission—although I guess that in her case many of those responsibilities are now devolved to the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation—as well as in relation to the provision of waste collection services. If a road is not adopted to a suitable standard, there is an argument that the borough council may find it difficult to access properties and take away rubbish.

Philip Hollobone: I know that my hon. Friend has a huge problem with the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol with regard to the proposed development of 3,000 homes to the east of Wellingborough in his constituency. Clearly, local residents did not want that number of houses built in the proximity of their town, and despite his best endeavours and those of his colleagues on the local borough council, their views, although made very strongly, were effectively ignored and overruled by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.
	One of the big problems with new housing developments is that roads are not being built to a suitable standard. If the Government's mechanism for that—section 38 of the Highways Act 1980—is already failing, my hon. Friend and I cannot expect it to work in the case of the large new estates that are being proposed in his constituency, in mine and across the country. That adds to local people's anxiety about the proper infrastructure not being in place when those new housing developments are constructed.
	I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Northampton, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) for highlighting specific examples of the problem. In my constituency, the main communities affected are Mawsley, a new, model village that has been under construction for some years now; the Grange estate, which is being built to the north of Desborough; and the Poppyfields development, which is still in the course of being constructed next to the railway line on Rothwell road in Kettering.
	The problem is that Northamptonshire county council, despite its best endeavours, can effectively adopt land as highway land only if the developer wants it to do so. It has no power to require developers to hand over land for adoption, and it rightly takes the view that it will adopt land only if the developer has brought it up to the right standard. It surprises me that developers seem reluctant to bring their highways up to a sufficient standard, because one would have thought that one of the best ways to sell properties on new estates was to have the highways, pavements and lighting sorted out, which would attract new purchasers. It is a genuine problem, especially for Mawsley village.
	Mr. Sanders from Mawsley has been a key figure in highlighting the problem. I wrote to the Minister for Housing at the Department for Communities and Local Government in August on behalf of Mr. Sanders. I had contacted the wrong Department, and I got a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole). That was extremely helpful. He told me:
	"The local authority, as the highway authority, is responsible for maintaining those streets that have been adopted by it, or its predecessor authorities. If the street has not been adopted, the responsibility for maintenance rests with the owner, or"—
	as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) highlighted—
	"more usually the frontagers, who are the owners of the properties that fronts, or abuts, the streets concerned. Those purchasing a property in an unadopted street should be advised of its status and the implications by their solicitor.
	There are two ways for the developer of a new estate to provide for the street to be adopted either by using section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or by use of the Advance Payment Code provisions in Part XI of the same Act.
	Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 allows a developer to enter into an agreement with a highway authority for the adoption of a new estate road... once it has been completed to a satisfactory standard. This is a matter for the local authority and the developer. An adoption agreement allows a developer to complete the street certain that it will be adopted subject to an inspection to confirm that it has been built in accordance with the appropriate standard.
	Alternatively, a developer may use the Advance Payment Code (APC), if building property on land fronting a private street."
	I imagine that that is the point of law that is of particular interest to the hon. Member for Ealing, North.
	The letter continues:
	"The landowner (usually the developer or builder) must deposit with the appropriate local authority a sum sufficient to meet the authority's estimate for the cost of it making up the street for adoption and apportion the expenses incurred between the owners of premises fronting the street. The code removes the liability for the subsequent owners of properties on a newly developed street that they would otherwise have had to meet to bring the road up to adoptable standards.
	Without an agreement under section 38 or use of an Advance Payment Code under the private street works code, then those owning property adjacent to an unadopted street are liable for both the maintenance of the street and for the cost of any works necessary to bring it up to the standard for adoption. Those buying a house on a new estate should be informed whether the street is subject to a section 38 agreement or APC and what stage this has reached. The impact of this should be explained to them by their solicitor when purchasing the property."

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The impact should be explained by the solicitor, but the majority of pre-purchase searches that a solicitor makes relate to, for example, major roadworks, whether planning permission has been granted for any extension, whether there are any major infrastructure schemes, basic land ownership and what we used to call a Swansea search. In many cases, there is no way that one would even know that a road was unadopted. If it is fairly recent and has a thin skin of tarmac, it looks reasonable. I have many constituents who have scrimped and saved to buy a house and now face either a massive bill to bring the road up to standard or spending the rest of their lives on a road that is falling to pieces before their eyes, will damage their vehicles, be a danger to their children and reduce the value of their property. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting such issues—I hope that he will give further impetus to those points.

Philip Hollobone: I am happy to give those points further impetus, but the main message that the hon. Gentleman and I wish to convey is that the Government need to take the matter away, and the appropriate Ministers in the appropriate Departments need to consider amending, for example, the estate agents' code and the solicitors' code, and examine whether there needs to be a change in the law to protect the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine from what can be very large charges.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Transport rounds off his helpful letter by saying:
	"Mr. Sanders raises some interesting issues, but these would require primary legislation and at present there is no suitable opportunity to do this."
	That is a great shame. It might be a late bid, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could persuade his colleagues to put something in the Queen's Speech next week. Whether by this Government or an alternative, these issues certainly need to be taken up and addressed in future.
	An individual in my constituency who has been heavily involved in this matter is Councillor Jim Harker, who is the leader of Northamptonshire county council and, as it happens, councillor for the Kettering rural division that includes the village of Mawsley. He has been working extremely closely with councillors Jim Hakewill and Victoria Perry, who are the borough councillors representing the Slade ward, which includes the village.
	In correspondence with constituents on this issue, Councillor Harker said:
	"As you know, most of the roads in Mawsley are unadopted and there are no Section 38 agreements in place. It is, of course, our intention to adopt the roads but under the current"
	arrangement
	"with the developers, there is no mechanism to force them to accelerate this process or a cut-off deadline for adoption. The County Council currently hold in excess of £4m bonds to be used in the event that individual developers are unable to make the roads up to adoptable standard and, consequently, we have to step in to resolve matters...The terms of the original planning permission make it difficult, but it seems that given the length of time that has elapsed since the commencement of people taking up residency, we do need to make every reasonable effort to get the roads adopted as soon as possible, rather than leave it to the developers, who we would have thought would be keen to see their bonds returned."
	He goes on to state that
	"it is not a question of"
	the county council not
	"putting enough pressure on the developers. Although we have the bond, we cannot use it without their agreement and they could withhold this unless we can negotiate it sensibly. This will take some time. Otherwise we will be left with the status quo negotiations by"
	Kettering borough council "in the original" section
	"106 agreement, which means that adoption will not take place until the development is complete."
	Therefore, the default position is that county councils can apply very little effective pressure to get developers of new residential housing development to comply, meaning that roads, highways and street lighting will not, in many cases, be brought up to adoptable standards until the entire development is complete. For many large-scale housing developments, that could take five, 10 or 15 years. Effectively, the ineffectiveness of the legislation is condemning hundreds of thousands of people in new houses up and down the country to live with substandard roads, pavements and street lighting.
	I have had a lot of correspondence from Mawsley residents on the issue. One e-mail came from Emma Brown who, in her own time, voluntarily edits the newsletter that goes around the village. She states:
	"As well as editing the village newsletter, I am also a childminder in Mawsley. I complete the school run by foot twice a day with up to 8 children at a time. My concern is that the crossings on unadopted roads seem to mean very little to motorists. In my opinion, they feel that a zebra crossing on an unadopted road has no significance. Everyday I stand with my children waiting for the traffic to stop — they can see us but do not feel the need to let us cross...I understand that this is equally a matter of the motorists' respect for pedestrians, but I think it is important to make the point that, if the roads are completed and 'proper' crossings are put in place, the motorists will take the crossings more seriously...It is only a matter of time before an accident happens."
	Another resident of Mawsley, Clare Farthing, sent me an e-mail saying:
	"Basically we are a very young but growing village, as you are well aware, and we have a vibrant community, full of young families with children. The roads are beginning to become a real issue, not only for pedestrians (because of badly constructed curbs and potholes), but also for cyclists and cars. Without a robust infrastructure in place, it will become more of an issue. People are already falling over and injuries have been caused.
	This is going to be an ongoing concern not only for Mawsley Village but for other new developments across the UK. There has to be a systematic approach to road adoption and developers need to be called to account before contracts are signed."
	She also says:
	"This village is now the home of nearly 2,000 residents, most with young children and the risk to their safety is now becoming more and more prevalent. In fact a number of people are wondering whether to begin to start putting forward injury claims for slips and trips caused by uneven road surfaces, minor accidents caused by lack of road signs, traffic islands being put in unsuitable areas, the list goes on."

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman always asks very good questions. I would imagine it would be the developers, because—

Philip Hollobone: They may have gone, or have gone bust. Certainly, the county council would not be liable, because it has not adopted the roads. In many cases, there would effectively be no redress for what could be some very serious injuries.
	I have given the Minister some photographs of the roads in Mawsley village, which show the extent of the problem. Unadopted roads on new estates do not have a top surface—in many cases, neither do the pavements—so the kerbs are very high compared to normal residential areas. That is a very real problem for young mums with buggies or prams and for the elderly, who are more at risk of tripping over. It can also cause damage to vehicles, if they scrape the side of the kerb.

Philip Hollobone: Sewerage is indeed a fascinating subject, and I am sure that many hon. Members might think of applying for a separate Adjournment debate on it. It involves section 104 of the relevant Act and is covered by different legislation. As usual, my hon. Friend is right: in many cases, the necessary water supply and sewerage works are not co-ordinated effectively with the construction of the highway. That is surprising, because one would think that the developers would want to get all that sorted out in the appropriate order. Sadly, because the developers know that the local authorities cannot apply any effective pressure on them to get the roads up to a suitable standard, they are very dilatory about getting the pipe work sorted out. Later in my speech, I shall tell the House about a constituent who raised that very point with me.
	Clare Farthing, in another informative e-mail, says:
	"Sounds like the developers just don't want to take responsibility for their part of the original agreement which was, as I believe, to look after several grassed areas, replant trees, resurface roads to an acceptable level...I do know that there are several new villages in Northamptonshire who have experienced this problem...I am in touch with several resident groups at the moment who are all experiencing the same problem.
	Is it sensible not to have any road signs, or pavements that are so awful small children are falling through cracks and verges are crumbling into the road? Can anyone else help? What is a sensible negotiation period? Surely people cannot in their right mind think that 8 years is an acceptable negotiation period? If I approached business with that sort of time line in place then I wouldn't be in business."
	My constituent Mr. Fergus Macdonald, from Burton Latimer, has also taken up the issue. He told me of his concerns:
	"There is no established procedure to ensure that the adoption happens in a timely manner... It is often in the developers interest to postpone the adoption as long as possible... There are too many parties (often with different agendas) involved in the process... The rules concerning the necessity of ensuring that the roads upon completion become adopted are somewhat vague... I would suggest that it would not be too difficult to ensure that at the planning application stage the time scales for adoption are agreed and financial penalties agreed if these are not met. I would quote to you the case in Burton Latimer where we are still seeking adoption some 9 years after the original completion".
	That is an extremely good point, and one that Councillor Jim Harker, the leader of Northamptonshire county council, made to me today. There needs to be a mechanism by which the highways authority can ensure the phased adoption of roads on new estates, rather than leaving it to the very end.
	Another constituent who has taken a close interest is Roger Knight. He told me:
	"Improvements needed are: 1. To speed up the process requiring developers to sign up to a specific completion date after which the LA will deduct amounts per day (or week) from the deposited bond. 2. The bond itself is very difficult to find information about. When is it paid over by developers, who holds it and when is it paid back?... 3. There is often confusion between three levels of local government (in the shires). Planners, Highway Authority..., Water Authority and Environment Agency are adept at "buck passing". Parish Councils have no powers but could be helpful in checking that work is completed on time".
	That is a very powerful point.
	Roger Knight went on to cite the case of Hollow Wood road, Burton Latimer, built by Francis Jackson Homes of Olney. He wrote:
	"This is a small development of 28 houses in a close. Built 2007-2009. Here the complaint is about the severe disruption to vehicular traffic as the pre-adoption work to drains and pathways has been"
	undertaken. He continued:
	"Inspection covers in the road were constantly lifted as leaks were corrected and access ladders installed. Why could the latter not have been installed at the time of the initial works?... Also in Burton Latimer the Hollands Drive developments, which was finished by 1999 is still not adopted."
	He has been in touch with Fergus Macdonald, who I have already quoted, and who is the town councillor responsible for highway concerns. They both raised these issues with me. Roger Knight continued:
	"My main contention is that house purchasers, who expect a property to be fit to live in before they move in, should have access in a safe and reasonable state. Perhaps a provision to enable the withholding of Council Tax until this happens could also speed up a process which sometimes takes several years to complete?"
	The issue of council tax has been taken up by many people affected by this issue. There is even an e-petition on the No. 10 website that states:
	"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make significant reductions in Council Tax and Water Rates (e.g. 10-20%) payable in respect of homes on housing developments of more than 10 houses on unadopted roads."
	The explanation on the details of the petition on the websites states:
	Council Tax is used to provide local services. Although residents benefit from services outside the immediate area of their homes, some services are not provided on unadopted roads (e.g. maintenance of roads, litter collection, emergency repairs to sewers and street lighting; and landscape maintenance). Residents therefore have to rely on the developers to undertake such work, which can take a long while, and standards can vary considerably in quality. Council tax should be proportionate to the levels and standards of service provided by the local and water authorities. Residents selling homes on unadopted roads may be required to deposit considerable sums of money as a bond to cover repairs etc. to unadopted roads. This undermines the value of homes and could be considered an additional tax."
	My contention is this: unless the Government address that loophole in the law, there will be growing calls from up and down the country for an amelioration of council tax for those residents affected. At a time when the country is in such dire financial circumstances, I am sure that that is one campaign that the Government would be keen to resist.
	My constituent Tom Sanders, whom I have mentioned already, has contacted me to say that, for him, the main issues are:
	"Lack of maintenance on street and road traffic lighting. Road and pavement surfaces...trip hazards and incomplete drop crossings for pedestrian and disabled persons...Roads not gritted...during adverse conditions."
	He tells me:
	"The fundamental problems are: The adoption process is un-regulated within the building industry. Builders/developers can pay 'lip service' to basic maintenance service support without any accountability. The whole adoption process can be dragged out with no restraints on a reasonable time frame. The local authorities have no empowerment on the adoption process and can only rely on negotiation.
	These problems have been evident for some time at Mawsley Village and the main developer, Taylor Wimpey, have been slow and reluctant in dealing with basic maintenance issues such as street lighting, road potholes and unfinished pavement surfaces.
	Taylor Wimpey also appear to be apathetic in bringing the development up to acceptable standards on road and pavement surfaces whilst a handful of houses are still to be built and construction traffic could be diverted.
	Therefore, my request to central government and the building industry is: Legislate regulations into the adoption process which provides maintenance services which the developer delivers on a par with the local authorities. This service is 'policed' or monitored by the NHBC"—
	the National House-Building Council—
	"with a 'one stop' call and complaints process. The adoption process should be progressive and where possible roads and pavements should be finished off and construction traffic diverted to the remaining building sites (Mawsley Village is now almost 10 years old and not all the roads are finished)".
	Mr. Sanders took his complaints to the developer Taylor Wimpey. He wrote to Mr. Askew, the head of the organisation, and received a very nice reply from Steve Farmer, the regional managing director. Mr. Farmer said:
	"Mr. Askew has asked me to respond to you on behalf of Taylor Wimpey due to my involvement with the Mawsley development.
	Your letter correctly suggests that the issues you have experienced on the Mawsley site are typical of those on many other developments throughout the country."
	That is not me or my constituent saying that; it is a major house builder saying it. Mr. Farmer continued:
	"Please let me know if you do not feel we are doing what we can, within our constraints, and I will investigate.
	We feel that the general issue you raised is one that mainly effects large developments which do not have sufficiently phased section 38 and section 104 agreements.
	It would be beneficial for developers to agree with local authorities at planning stage a phased policy for the development that would allow adoptions to take place at stages throughout the site.
	Due to the experiences we have encountered on the Mawsley development this is a practice that we have already adopted on later sites.
	In conclusion, we do recognise the issues raised and will work with the other parties involved to try and improve matters on developments in the future."
	So there we have it: an admission from one of the major house builders in the land that the law is not as it should be.
	I am most grateful to the Speaker for giving me permission to hold this debate. This is an issue of major concern that will affect an increasing number of people, not only in my constituency but across the country. It is also an issue that could be solved relatively easily with a bit of political will and drive from the Minister. It will not just be a matter for the Department for Transport, however; other Government Departments will need to be involved.
	This is not a party political issue; it is a real issue of major concern that will affect lots of people up and down the country. There does not appear to be any legal requirement for developers to enter into a section 38 agreement to have roads adopted. Even if they do enter into such agreements, local authorities are unable to access bonded funds from them without the developers' consent. That is a major loophole in the Highways Act 1980 that this Government need to address.

Sadiq Khan: I, too, thank Mr. Speaker for granting the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) the Adjournment debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing it, and on providing an opportunity to discuss the adoption of new streets, not only in his constituency but elsewhere. I should also like to put on record the fact that other hon. Members have been present and that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) have made excellent interventions and raised some important points, some of which I shall try to deal with in the two hours that I have in which to respond to the 50-minute speech made by the hon. Member for Kettering.
	It might be helpful if I first set out the background to how a highway becomes maintainable at public expense by a highway authority—a process known as adoption. During the hon. Gentleman's 50-minute speech, we heard comments about regional bodies. Reference was also made to sewerage and to legal claims. I shall try to stay away from those subjects, and to respond only to the points that fall within the remit of the Department for Transport.
	An unadopted street—or private street, as it is called in the Highways Act 1980—is a highway that is not maintainable at the public expense by a highway authority. The Highway Act of 1835 introduced the provision that, for a street to become publicly maintainable, the "responsible public authority" must deliberately resolve to adopt it. Nowadays, that authority will normally be the local highway authority—for example, Northamptonshire county council is the relevant highway authority for the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	In general, the responsibility for maintaining a private street will fall to the owners of the properties adjoining it—they are known as the frontagers—who would also be legally liable to meet the expenses incurred by the council in making up the street for adoption. Part 11 of the Highways Act 1980 contains what is known as the private street works code. Under the code, a street works authority can resolve to make up a private street at any time. After the works, the street is usually adopted.
	The authority can apportion the expense of making up the street between the frontagers, according to the lengths of the frontage of the individual properties that abut or front the street concerned. However, the authority may also modify those apportionments if it has been resolved in advance by the authority to take account of the degree of benefit—if there is any—that individual properties derive from the works. In addition, the authority may, if it sees fit, contribute to the cost of the scheme itself. I am not sure whether that happened in any of the cases that the hon. Gentleman described. There is provision for property owners to object to their apportionments if they see fit, and in the last resort they can appeal to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State against the sum demanded. That is the extent of the Department's involvement in individual cases.
	To avoid the wholesale creation of new private street works liability, the advance payments code was introduced. Under this code, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, a developer building a new property on land fronting a private street must deposit a sum equivalent to the authority's estimated private street works charge, before building starts. This amount is set against the frontager's own eventual liability for street works charges, which is discharged to the extent of that sum, along with any accrued interest. The frontager then pays any shortfall or receives a refund, as the case may be.
	There is an alternative route to adoption for new streets. Under the Highways Act 1980, a developer can enter into an agreement with a highway authority for the adoption of a new estate road or, rather, a private street, when it has been completed satisfactorily. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is known as a section 38 agreement. In that case, the advance payments code does not apply and the house buyer on a new estate has the assurance that they will not be called upon to pay street works charges later on.
	These "adoption agreements", as they are known, offer such obvious advantages to both the developer and the authority that such an approach is often the preferred one. The developer has the certainty of knowing that. after a year, the authority will automatically adopt the street as a highway maintainable at public expense—subject, of course, to an inspection to confirm that it has been built to the standard agreed by the highway authority. I am not aware in respect of the streets referred to whether the highway authority, Northamptonshire county council, entered into such agreements.
	Once adopted, the highway authority becomes liable for future maintenance and liabilities, should there be claims arising from the condition of the highway. Therefore most authorities will adopt a new street in a development only if it has been built to the agreed standard. Where an agreement exists between a highway authority and developer, it will be for the developer to inform the highway authority that the new street should be adopted. The use of agreements or the advance payment code is an important way of protecting the council tax payer.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to four matters of concern to his constituents. On the first issue, which related to how the adoption of streets within new developments is carried out, it is clearly unfair to expect council tax payers to subsidise the building of new developments by expecting them to adopt streets that have not been built to the appropriate standards—hence the provision in legislation for agreements and the advance payment code. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1972 figure of 40,000 unadopted roads and he referred to the Library paper that estimated about the same figure for the numbers today. At today's prices, it would cost an estimated £3 billion for these roads to be made up. It is worth bearing that in mind in our discussions on this issue.
	That is why the bond is so important, because it is intended to indemnify the authority from potential liabilities. Once the highway authority is satisfied that the new street is suitable for adoption, the bond is released. For newly built properties—the hon. Member for Wellingborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, as well as the hon. Gentleman, touched on this—those acting for the purchaser should establish the status of the new street and whether there is an agreement to adopt the new highway or that a bond has been lodged with the authority under the advance payment code and advise their client on the implications and what action they could take to mitigate this. In developments such as Mawsley village, it is in the developer's interests to discuss at an early stage with the highway authority how the new streets and infrastructure should be built, rather than, as I understand is the case, to bring the streets up to standard after houses have been occupied.
	Good local authorities—it is not for me to comment on whether the hon. Gentleman's authority is a good or bad one—working within the national planning policy framework set planning policies so that local development meet local needs. They may choose to set local planning policies that impose requirements for streets in new developments to be built to the appropriate standard for adoption—an easy thing, one could argue, for a good local authority to do, and many good local authorities around the country are doing just that.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman must have seen my speech, as I am just coming on to that very point. The requirement can be enforced either through planning conditions or through the use of planning obligations—an agreement between a developer and a local authority. Kettering borough council, as the planning authority for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, could have included that in its planning policies. In addition, if a developer intends a street to remain private with no public right of access, then some councils—the good ones—have entered into planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires the developer to build the new streets to the authority's standards and to maintain them in a good condition.

Sadiq Khan: That is why the good planning departments work closely with developers to ensure that buildings are finished on time. Timelines are established so that buildings can be completed quickly.
	The hon. Gentleman is presumably alluding to the recession. We know that some developers have had problems and that, for very good reasons, the building of new estates may be delayed. In such circumstances, we would expect the developer and the council to work closely together to ensure that residents who have moved in are not disrupted, and that residents outside the development who use the roads are not inconvenienced by unadopted roads that are not up to scratch.
	Authorities will usually only adopt a street if it has been brought up to standard at the expense of the frontagers. As a result, an existing street may only be adopted if a majority of owners in that street agree. For obvious reasons, many authorities prefer to have 100 per cent agreement. If the householders are unable to pay, the Highways Act 1980 provides for the authority to agree to payment with interest over a number of years, or to place a charge on the property. Either approach means that an authority incurs expenditure on behalf of others that may not be recovered for many years, perhaps up to 20 to 30. The highway authority could, subject to decisions by its elected officers, agree to share the cost of bringing the highway up to standard.
	Decisions about whether to adopt streets and take on the cost of maintenance are local matters for local decisions, which will be based on the priorities within the authority's own programme of works. The hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, may be interested to know that between 2008 and 2011 my Department is providing approximately £4 billion of capital funding to support local authority spending on small transport projects and highways maintenance, and around £2.3 billion on larger regional and local transport schemes. The local government settlement from the Department for Communities and Local Government distributes additional revenue funding to local authorities for transport purposes.

Peter Bone: The Minister is giving a very good response, but may I pick up his point about money being provided by the Department for Transport? In Wellingborough, the Department is suggesting putting in a bus lane for about 60 yards, which will speed up buses by three seconds at a cost of £2 million. Local people say that that is nonsense, but unless the infrastructure is put in, all the rest of the Government funding will fall. That does not seem a very good way in which to approach the provision of local infrastructure.

Sadiq Khan: I thought Her Majesty's official Opposition were against databases. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that £3 billion is the cost of adopting the roads on the basis of the 40,000 figure I cited earlier. He will also know that those roads are local matters, and that for us to start compiling a database and obtaining the statistics from local authorities would take a huge amount of time. He, like me, is keen to ensure that every single penny of taxpayers' money is used for sensible purposes, rather than being spent on compiling databases when we already know the cost that will be involved in adopting all the roads.

Sadiq Khan: I refer the hon. Gentleman back to what he said in his speech, relying on the paper from the House of Commons Library. All the evidence suggests the number of unadopted roads is about the same now, 40,000, as it was then. I am not sure how having this scientifically tested would help because the point still remains that the cost of adopting those roads is approximately £3 billion. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he can persuade his Front-Bench team to reach a consensus with us and agree that it is right to spend such a sum of money on that, or does he believe that we should have good planning authorities that work with developers to ensure that when roads are constructed, they are up to the necessary standard to be adopted, which I believe is the prudent course of action? I am unclear whether he is suggesting that his party should make a £3 billion spending commitment.

Philip Hollobone: Neither the Minister nor I, nor any other Member, knows what that £3 billion figure is based on, because both the Minister and I are relying on a note from the House of Commons Library, and as esteemed as it is, the data are only based on original figures from 1972. Surely the Department for Transport can do better than that.

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman and I will agree on whether databases are a good thing and whether taxpayers' money or civil servants' time should be spent on compiling databases for this purpose. I do not think they should be, but he clearly disagrees.
	There is no doubt that many people who live on private streets consider their liability to pay private street works charges as unfair, particularly people whose houses have long frontages, which make them liable to correspondingly high charges. However, while I obviously have sympathy for those to whom such charges represent a degree of hardship, we should remember that the liability for street works will appear in the local land charges register. The liability should therefore be taken into account in the purchase price of the house.
	Many householders have paid to have their own streets made up, and might well feel aggrieved at a decision to make the service free to future users, especially in residential roads where the benefits will be enjoyed almost entirely by the householders and those visiting them, rather than by the public at large. When properties on unadopted streets are purchased, the searches should normally reveal that the street is unadopted, and the potential liabilities should be explained to those planning to purchase properties on an unadopted street by their conveyancer. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North made a very good point about buyers not always being informed of that by their solicitor or conveyancer. If he has examples of that, I will be happy to write to the Law Society to make sure they are looked into. Also, the hon. Member for Kettering might want to pass on to me examples in respect of additional guidance. I thought his party was against over-regulation and over-prescription, but if he is in favour of intervention and the hand of the state being placed on solicitors, I will be happy to listen to his representations and then write to the Law Society.
	Some authorities have decided to tackle the issue of the number of unadopted streets in their area by funding some of the work to bring certain streets up to adoption standards. The focus is usually on streets that would benefit the local road network, for instance those that are a through route, or where the properties served are in a deprived neighbourhood. Authorities may use a number of sources of finance to support programmes to tackle long-standing unadopted streets in their area. Generally, these programmes are undertaken only where unadopted streets are in a bad condition and they provide the only access for a large number of properties. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Kettering has seen the unadopted roads information produced by the Department for Transport, but if he has not—or if his county council and borough council have not—I shall be happy to send him a copy. He simply need let me know after the debate has concluded.
	The priority each local authority gives to spending resources on unadopted streets is for it to determine locally. The revenue support grant is allocated using a formula and, among other factors, it takes account of road maintenance, which is based on the length of road in respect of each of the different types of road for which the authority is responsible, along with the relative cost of maintaining the road, which takes account of traffic flow, population, and weather conditions.
	Local councils could decide on a programme of adoption and it could be funded through either prudential borrowing or capital receipts from the sale of assets, which may be used for capital purposes. Local authorities already have the flexibility to prioritise their transport expenditure in line with their own locally determined policies. Each authority's local transport plan is formed of a strategy and a shorter-term implementation plan, which is devised at local level in partnership with the community and recognises that local problems require local solutions. Funding for small-scale integrated transport improvement and maintenance schemes, such as making up unadopted roads, is provided as block capital allocations, allowing authorities to spend it as they wish according to local priorities. Such funding amounts to approximately £1.3 billion a year.
	By working with highway authorities, developers can ensure that the streets in new estates can be adopted and the responsibility for future maintenance is transferred smoothly to the local authority. As long as streets are built in accordance with the local authority's requirements, there is no reason why newly built streets should not be adopted. I sympathise with those living on new developments who are frustrated by the time taken on this. I empathise with many of the comments made by the hon. Members for Kettering and for Wellingborough and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, but they will agree that a considerable amount has been done in this regard.
	I am happy for the hon. Member for Kettering to meet my officials if he has specific examples of ways in which we can improve things, but I say that with a caveat: he will appreciate that we have various ambitious plans over the next period, which will be set out in the Queen's Speech next week. A number of his proposals will require primary legislation to ensure that the streets within new developments are built to appropriate standards. Bearing that in mind, my officials and I might not be receptive to some of his ideas if they require that sort of primary legislation or expenditure. If he has other ideas that are sensible, pragmatic, quick and cheap, we would listen with open ears to them.
	Once again, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and thank him for the conscientious and assiduous way in which he has argued his points? I should also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who have stayed throughout this long debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 9 November 2009: In column 74, in Division No. 241, in the Ayes, delete "Harris, Mr. Tom", insert "Harris, Dr. Evan".